Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:13:53 +0200 From: Marc Olzheim <marcolz@stack.nl> To: Q <q_dolan@yahoo.com.au> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Some mmap observations compared to Linux 2.6/OpenBSD Message-ID: <20031023131353.GA3111@stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <1066910120.58538.15.camel@boxster.onthenet.com.au> References: <20031022082953.GA69506@rot13.obsecurity.org> <1066816287.25609.34.camel@boxster.onthenet.com.au> <20031022095754.GA70026@rot13.obsecurity.org> <1066820436.25609.93.camel@boxster.onthenet.com.au> <20031022144043.GI55642@dan.emsphone.com> <20031022155058.GE3640@saboteur.dek.spc.org> <20031022204200.GC14012@splashground.de> <1066865808.42673.28.camel@boxster.onthenet.com.au> <20031023112353.GD14012@splashground.de> <1066910120.58538.15.camel@boxster.onthenet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 09:55:21PM +1000, Q wrote: > I beg to differ. It might show linear growth, but the OpenBSD graph is > definitely not O(n). Hmm, it looks like that when it hits the next threshold, it's O(n), but O(1) otherwise. But contrary to the blurry Linux 2.4 fork() graph, the thresholds seem set at fixed numbers of pages. Zlo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031023131353.GA3111>