[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:0.028 / U:2.364 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site