[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH/RFC] Shared page tables

Those are interesting numbers. That's pretty much the showcase for
sharing, yeah.

--On Tuesday, January 24, 2006 17:43:28 -0600 Ray Bryant
<> wrote:

> Of course, it would be more dramatic with a real DB application, but that
> is going to take a bit longer to get running, perhaps a couple of months
> by the time all is said and done.

I must mention here that I think most DB performance suites do their forks
up front, then never fork during the test, so fork performance doesn't
really factor in as much. There are other reasons shared page tables helps
there, though.

> Now I am off to figure out how Andi's mmap() randomization patch
> interacts with all of this stuff.

mmap() randomization doesn't affect fork at all, since by definition all
regions are at the same address in the child as the parent (ie good for
sharing). The trickier case is where processes independently mmap() a


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-25 00:53    [W:0.108 / U:4.784 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site