From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 26 14:26:27 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C606537B404 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:26:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stoneport.math.uic.edu (stoneport.math.uic.edu [131.193.178.160]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E5B2F4400E for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:26:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from djb-dsn-1056662819.51367@cr.yp.to) Received: (qmail 51368 invoked by uid 1017); 26 Jun 2003 21:26:59 -0000 Date: 26 Jun 2003 21:26:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20030626212659.51367.qmail@cr.yp.to> Automatic-Legal-Notices: See http://cr.yp.to/mailcopyright.html. From: "D. J. Bernstein" To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org References: <20030626025029.71392.qmail@cr.yp.to> <200306260515.h5Q5FhPF020045@bitblocks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: ten thousand small processes X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:26:28 -0000 Bakul Shah writes: > Instead of complaining about wasting 78 megabytes and arguing > about why various proposed solutions fall short and why your > way is the best, why don't you come up with a patch that > saves space for small programs? Funny. Seems to me that I keep making concrete suggestions---including a detailed proposal for giving more space to malloc()---and the answer is consistently ``We really don't care about per-process overhead.'' What's the benefit of a patch for people who don't even see the problem? ---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago