Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:18:37 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: David Xu <bsddiy@21cn.com>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: vm balance Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0104121316190.18260-100000@imladris.rielhome.conectiva> In-Reply-To: <200104110244.f3B2iHk97869@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Matt Dillon wrote: > It's randomness that will kill performance. You know the old saying > about caches: They only work if you get cache hits, otherwise > they only slow things down. I wonder ... how does FreeBSD handle negative directory entries? That is, /bin/sh looks through the PATH to search for some executable (eg grep) and doesn't find it in the first 3 directories. The next time the script is started (it might be ran for every file in a large compile) the next invocation of the script looks for the file in 3 directories where it isn't present .. again. Does the vfs cache handle this or does FreeBSD have to go down into the filesystem code every time? Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.21.0104121316190.18260-100000>