Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9 | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | 21 Sep 2001 02:23:15 -0600 |
| |
Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> writes:
> On 19 Sep 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > That added to the fact that last time someone ran the numbers linux > > was considerably faster than the BSD for mm type operations when not > > swapping. And this is the common case. > > Optimising the VM for not swapping sounds kind of like > optimising your system for doing empty fork()/exec()/exit() > loops ;)
Swapping is an important case. But 9 times out of 10 you are managing memory in caches, and throwing unused pages into swap. You aren't busily paging the data back an forth. But if I have to make a choice in what kind of situation I want to take a performance hit, paging approaching thrashing or a system whose working set size is well within RAM. I'd rather take the hit in the system that is paging.
Further fast IPC + fork()/exec()/exit() that programmers can count on leads to more robust programs. Because different pieces of the program can live in different processes. One of the reasons for the stability of unix is that it has always had a firewall between it's processes so one bad pointer will not bring down the entire system.
Besides I also like to run a lot of shell scripts, which again stress the fork()/exec()/exit() path.
So no I don't think keeping those paths fast is silly.
I also think that being able to get good memory usage information is important. I know that reverse maps make that job easier. But just because the make an important case easier to get write I don't think reverse maps are a shoe in.
Eric
- 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/
|  |