From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun 27 09:12:20 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 2180C37B401
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bitblocks.com (bitblocks.com [209.204.185.216])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49F3243FB1
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com)
Received: from bitblocks.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by bitblocks.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5RGCHPF029635;
	Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com)
Message-Id: <200306271612.h5RGCHPF029635@bitblocks.com>
To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
In-reply-to: Your message of "26 Jun 2003 21:26:59 -0000."
             <20030626212659.51367.qmail@cr.yp.to> 
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:12:17 -0700
From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>
cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ten thousand small processes 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:12:21 -0000

> > 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.