From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 20 14:40:11 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F35F14C3D for ; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:40:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id OAA07272; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:38:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:38:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199907202138.OAA07272@apollo.backplane.com> To: Bob Bishop Cc: "Kelly Yancey" , , Subject: Re: RE: Overcommit and calloc() References: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :Hi again, : :At 10:54 am -0700 20/7/99, Matthew Dillon wrote: :[...] :> It should also be noted that unless your system is entirely cpu-bound, :> there is no cost to the kernel to zero memory because it pre-zero's :> pages in its idle loop. : :Thanks to distributed.net, SETI. et al, idle cycles are fast going out of :fashion. : :-- :Bob Bishop (0118) 977 4017 international code +44 118 The overhead of running seti - the OS allowing the mintick interval to elapse when it gives seti cpu, that is - is going to be several orders of magnitude greater then any increase in performance that you get from trying to optimize calloc(). -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message