On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > Well, I still don't think we need to test vm_file. We can add an > > anon_vma test if you like, if we really want to minimize the fork > > overhead, in favour of later faults. Do we? > > When you consider NUMA placement (the child process may > end up running elsewhere), allocating things like page > tables lazily may well end up being a performance win.
It should be easy enough to benchmark something like kernel compiles etc, which are reasonably fork-rich and should show a good mix for something like this. Or even just something like "time to restart a X session" after you've brought it into memory once. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/