On Monday 09 June 2008 12:55, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > This actually _improves_ our performance in near-OOM conditions. > > How? Going back to crypt(). If we will go back and reinstate > > static buffers there, busybox's data+bss size will jump from 8k > > to 80k - tenfold increase. On NOMMU, if you have N running > > busybox daemons, you already have additional N*72k bytes > > allocated and sitting there, totally unused. > > Well, wasting memory at run-time is inherent in the design of busybox.
Only on machines which cannot share text segment. > Have you considered that it might be busybox that is broken? During last two years I shrank it by more than 10% text segment wise and many orders of magniture in data+bss (from more than 1000k to 8k). So, no, I don't think that it's broken. > > This will be a measurable, real drop in memory utilisation > > efficiency. Just start 1000 copies of "busybox sleep 10" > > and measure how many more megabytes that would require. > > This only shows that busybox is unsuitable for that workload and people > should install normal GNU utilities if that's what they want to run. Good luck with that. On the machine I write this email: 4000 copies of "busybox sleep 10" increased total memory usage from 438m to 625m (so, +200m, or 46k per process) whereas GNU sleep went from 438m to 840m (+400m). -- vda _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
