From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 05:17:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 05:17:46 -0500 Received: from h24-77-26-115.gv.shawcable.net ([24.77.26.115]:16590 "EHLO phalynx") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 05:17:31 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Ryan Cumming To: vvikram@av.stanford.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ingo patch] 2.4.17 benchmarks Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 02:17:30 -0800 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] In-Reply-To: <20020105215048.A9335@av.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <20020105215048.A9335@av.stanford.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On January 5, 2002 21:50, vvikram@av.stanford.edu wrote: > 2) further i seperately ran ./lat_proc fork; ./lat_proc exec; ./lat_proc > shell many times on the vanilla and patched kernels. their output is also > attached in one file [lat_proc.txt]. the patched kernel takes > MORE time than the vanilla one...... I'd blame this partially on the reverted fork() execution order bit of his patch. The child process really should be executed first, and performance is much improved in that case (COW and things). I don't think we should worry about breaking obviously incorrect (and already fragile) programs for 2.5.x. -Ryan