Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:12:17 -0700 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ten thousand small processes Message-ID: <200306271612.h5RGCHPF029635@bitblocks.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "26 Jun 2003 21:26:59 -0000." <20030626212659.51367.qmail@cr.yp.to>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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? If after repeated suggestions people are not "getting it", the reason is usually *not* apathy. Either you are not explaining well or your starting assumptions are different. But show me the code! If I like it I'll use it. "Build it and they will come" -- you should be familiar with that! If enough people like it, may be it will get incorporated in some form. May be.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200306271612.h5RGCHPF029635>