![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > Despite the fact that the number of pte_chain references in > > page_add/remove_rmap now just averages two in that test. > > It's weird that it only averages two. It's a four way and your running > 10 in parallel, plus a process to watch for completion, right? I explained this one in the comment above the declaration of struct pte_chain ;) * A singly linked list should be fine for most, if not all, workloads. * On fork-after-exec the mapping we'll be removing will still be near * the start of the list, on mixed application systems the short-lived * processes will have their mappings near the start of the list and * in systems with long-lived applications the relative overhead of * exit() will be lower since the applications are long-lived. cheers, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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 12:27 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||