Re: [patch 1/2] fork_connector: add a fork connector

Guillaume Thouvenin
2005-03-29T12:51:32Z

On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 13:42 -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Guillaume wrote:
> > The lmbench shows that the overhead (the construction and the sending
> > of the message) in the fork() routine is around 7%.
>
> Thanks for including the numbers. The 7% seems a bit costly, for a bit
> more accounting information. Perhaps dean's suggestion, to not use
> ascii, will help. I hope so, though I doubt it will make a huge
> difference. Was this 7% loss with or without a user level program
> consuming the sent messages? I would think that the number of interest
> would include a minimal consumer task.

I ran some test using the CBUS instead of the cn_netlink_send() routine
and the overhead is nearly 0%:

fork connector disabled:
Process fork+exit: 148.1429 microseconds

fork connector enabled:
Process fork+exit: 148.4595 microseconds

Regards,
Guillaume