In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: 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.
True. However, I get very similar numbers of I change it to
/usr/bin/true (12% slower). /bin/sh usually fork+exec things other
/bin/sh.
: >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.
Dynamically linked prorgrams tend to be a few percent slower than
their static counterparts due to PIC code typically being slower than
non-PIC code. There's nothing new here.
Clearly there are problems to look into, but it isn't the end of the
world.
Warner
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
