Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:40:15 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Wow... (<-- blown away at performance) Message-ID: <AANLkTi=6JNg1wxzj_AZLELb6QRnLpWo%2BkS3fW2WKHZtb@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201102231517.06962.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <AANLkTi=TM8qfSZLmmX_tFmdhd6D3w-=tjZ99kKK_Cw4K@mail.gmail.com> <20110222223314.GA72748@freebsd.org> <ik3m58$vin$1@dough.gmane.org> <201102231517.06962.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23 February 2011 21:17, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 2:11:35 pm Ivan Voras wrote: >> On 22/02/2011 23:33, Alexander Best wrote: >> >> >>>>> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Also, it looks like npviewer.bin still hangs t= o resources on > until >> >>>>> Firefox closes (or I kill it :)..), so something still needs to be >> >>>>> resolved there, but that isn't a regression (it's acted that way f= or >> >>>>> ages), and shouldn't be too hard to do. >> >> While on the subject - any ideas why npviewer.bin is present as so many >> processes? They all appear to have some identical properties, most >> curiously their memory usage, so shouldn't they be threads? > > Threads in Linux processes show up as individual processes. Ah, ok. This was "fixed" in Linux (in their nptl project cca 2005) so I assumed it was also fixed here.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi=6JNg1wxzj_AZLELb6QRnLpWo%2BkS3fW2WKHZtb>