![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> I'd blame this partially on the reverted fork() execution order bit of his > patch. The child process really should be executed first, and performance is > much improved in that case (COW and things). I don't think we should worry > about breaking obviously incorrect (and already fragile) programs for 2.5.x. ok. and one more thing which i thought i should mention , i used lmbench 2.0 vanilla... i just see that there seems to be 2 patches for 2.0 . i didnt apply them , maybe i should? are they relevant to this context? Vikram > -Ryan > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||