Re: ten thousand small processes
From: Chuck Swiger (cswiger_at_mac.com)
Date: 06/26/03
- Previous message: Petri Helenius: "Re: ten thousand small processes"
- In reply to: D. J. Bernstein: "Re: ten thousand small processes"
- Next in thread: D. J. Bernstein: "Re: ten thousand small processes"
- Reply: D. J. Bernstein: "Re: ten thousand small processes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:53:57 -0400 To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
D. J. Bernstein wrote:
[ ... ]
> Funny. Seems to me that I keep making concrete suggestions---including a
> detailed proposal for giving more space to malloc()---and the answer is
> consistently ``We really don't care about per-process overhead.'' What's
> the benefit of a patch for people who don't even see the problem?
Speaking for myself (rather than for others), I care about per-process overhead.
The source code to FreeBSD's implementation of malloc is available at:
/usr/src/lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c
If you'd like to implement your suggested changes, generate a patch (preferably
via 'diff -duw'), you may either submit it as a PR via the 'send-pr' command, or
you can post it to this list. It would be nice if you performed some regression
testing to confirm that your change works and is beneficial not just for your
specific circumstances, but for the general case as well.
If you were to do these things, and then people said "We really don't care...",
at that time you'd have justification for the position taken prematurely above.
-- -Chuck _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Petri Helenius: "Re: ten thousand small processes"
- In reply to: D. J. Bernstein: "Re: ten thousand small processes"
- Next in thread: D. J. Bernstein: "Re: ten thousand small processes"
- Reply: D. J. Bernstein: "Re: ten thousand small processes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
- Re: I feel like crud (maybe some TMI depending on your sensitivy level) and ranting I suppose
... yesterday was your 'worst' day of quits - from previous experience, ... that
stoned feeling, that that is a poisoned feeling. ... Take care hon, Stephanie ...
There are not even any stores open by the time I get my patch o' the day on. ... (alt.support.stop-smoking) - Re: [take22 0/4] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism.
... February I changed interfaces 4 times - and it is just interfaces, ... When
all requested features are implemented I definitely with patch some ... that my guesses
were told by The Big Jury to you already: ... why do you care about indent of the
userspace ... (Linux-Kernel) - Re: [PATCH x86] [5/16] Replace hard coded reservations in x86-64 early boot code with dynamic ta
... Can't you just convert them using a script on new if you care so much about
those? ... i'm not sure how you manage patches - if you have some 'refresh patch' ...
improve clean _looking_ code than messy looking code. ... (Linux-Kernel) - Re: CodeGreen beta release (idq-patcher/antiCodeRed/etc.)
... On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Markus Kern wrote: ... >>> anyone else to execute
code on my machines either but a patch has been ... >>> The others who
didn't care about Code Red are very likely not to care ... (Vuln-Dev) - Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
... having a zero in the PCI irq register basically means ... Linux simply never
reads Interrupt Line if Interrupt Pin is 0. ... that was something benh tried to make me
care ... how about this for a new patch series: ... (Linux-Kernel)