On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 6:52 PM Steffen Nurpmeso <[email protected]> wrote: > David Laight wrote in > <[email protected]>: > |From: Denys Vlasenko > |> Sent: 01 March 2022 16:40 > |> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:31 PM Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: > |>> On 2/14/22 10:09 AM, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > ... > |> My memory is hazy on this, but IIRC kernel also actually has some > |> defensive code to not immediately reuse pids which just died. > | > |The Linux krnel only has protection for code inside the kernel. > |Basically there is a ref-counted structure that you need to send the > |signal - not the pid itself. > |I can't quite remember whether the pid itself can be reused even before > |that structure is freed. > | > |NetBSD does guarantee not to reuse a pid for a reasonable number > |of forks after a process exits. > > ...which might be fruitless with 16-bit pids, define "reasonable". > Matt Dillon of DragonFly BSD (crond etc.) made, after implementing > some DBSD kernel optimizations (iirc), tests with statically > linked programs and... quoting myself > > i remember Matthew Dillon's post on DragonFly BSD users@[1], where > he claims 450000 execs per second for a statically linked binary, > and about 45000 execs per second for a dynamic one, with DragonFly > 5.6 on a threadripper.
What's relevant is how many fork's you can do per second. Not execs. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
