Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: Note describing poor dcache utilization under high memory pressure | Date | Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:59:22 +0100 |
| |
On January 30, 2002 03:46 pm, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > On January 30, 2002 10:07 am, Horst von Brand wrote: > > > > But most of this will be lost on exec(2). > > > > Also, it is my impression that > > > the tree of _running_ processes isn't usually very deep (Say init --> X --> > > > [Random processes] --> [compilations &c], this would make 5 or 6 deep, no > > > more. > > > Here's my tree - on a non-very-busy laptop. Why is my X tree so much deeper? > > I suppose if I was running java this would look considerably more interesting. > > > |-bash---bash---xinit-+-XFree86 > > | `-xfwm-+-xfce---gnome-terminal-+-bash---pstree > > It doesn't matter how deep the tree is, on exec() all > previously shared page tables will be blown away. > > In this part of the tree, I see exactly 2 processes > which could be sharing page tables (the two bash > processes).
Sure, your point is that there is no problem and the speed of rmap on fork is not something to worry about?
-- Daniel - 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/
| |