Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:25:21 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: dnelson@allantgroup.com Cc: gallatin@cs.duke.edu Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh Message-ID: <20031124.182521.58437627.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20031125012208.GD46761@dan.emsphone.com> References: <16322.26365.159173.946033@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <200311251049.18227.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <20031125012208.GD46761@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20031125012208.GD46761@dan.emsphone.com>
Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> writes:
: In the last episode (Nov 25), Daniel O'Connor said:
: > On Tuesday 25 November 2003 06:45, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
: > > So.. forking a dynamic sh is roughly 40% more expensive than
: > > forking a static copy of sh. This is embarrassing.
: > >
: > > I propose that we at least make /bin/sh static. (and not add a
: > > /sbin/sh; if we must have a dynamic sh, import pdksh, or put a
: > > dynamically linked sh in /usr/bin/sh).
: > >
: > > I'd greatly prefer that the the dynamic root default be backed out
: > > until a substantial amount of this performance can be recovered.
: >
: > What _REAL WORLD_ task does this slow down?
:
: Try timing "cd /usr/ports/www/mozilla-devel ; make clean" with static
: and dynamic /bin. bsd.port.mk spawns many many many /bin/sh processes.
Maybe you could try it with both and tell us the actual difference in
wall time?
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031124.182521.58437627.imp>