From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:15:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:15:46 -0400 Received: from to-velocet.redhat.com ([216.138.202.10]:52214 "EHLO touchme.toronto.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:15:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:21:30 -0400 From: Benjamin LaHaise To: Dave McCracken Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel , Linux Memory Management Subject: Re: Fork timing numbers for shared page tables Message-ID: <20021010172130.A11796@redhat.com> References: <167610000.1034278338@baldur.austin.ibm.com> <3DA5D893.CDD2407C@digeo.com> <175360000.1034279947@baldur.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <175360000.1034279947@baldur.austin.ibm.com>; from dmccr@us.ibm.com on Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 02:59:07PM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 02:59:07PM -0500, Dave McCracken wrote: > I don't know why exec introduces a small penalty for small tasks. I'm > working on some optimizations that might help. Compare against vfork() to see what kind of best case is possible, and how much of the overhead in small tasks is just in non-vm overhead. -ben