On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:16:07PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: >Hmmmm, It looks like the hit is less than 10% in the fork intensive >test I just wrote: > >#!/bin/sh >for i in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do > for j in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do > for k in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do > for l in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do > for m in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do > for n in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9; do > true; >done; done; done; done; done; done;
Unless you've done something wierd to your /bin/sh, "true" is a builtin. This test just to measures the ongoing runtime overhead of a dynamic executable (ie PIC code). Drew's test was measuring the startup overhead. >Clearly dynamic is slower, but it is more like 11% slower (10.67%) on >the average than 40% slower. I think this would be a more typical >usage pattern. You have measured different things. Drew's test shows that a dynamic /bin/sh tahes about 40% longer to start. Your test shows that once started, it runs about 11% slower. And the 11% slower is _very_ worrying since it is probably more widely applicable than just /bin/sh. Peter _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
