Denys Vlasenko wrote in <cak1hocmk3hbppb6e5dwvc9mvfs9dvlq2qb9kuv5iprjjmj7...@mail.gmail.com>: |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.
mumble --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
