Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:34:09 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Bob Van Valzah <Bob@Talarian.Com>, Jorge Aldana <jorge@salk.edu>, Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Performance vs. Stable Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020226233303.38595Q-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <3C7C60BA.3FBDB9A0@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > Thus such calls have zero system call overhead. > > Similar shortcuts can be had for other read-values, such as getgid, > getgroups, etc., etc. (hacks required in the set call wrapper for fork, > etc., obviously). > > Using a write of /dev/null is an attempt to work around this; of > course, you could special case that, as well, in user space, but it'd be > more work than Larry thinks most people will go to to cheat on the > benchmark (Hi Larry! 8-)). Yeah, that was my recollection as to why the switch from getpid() was made. :-) For people who are willing to be honest, getpid() is a far better measure. For those that aren't, well... BTW, we can likely remove Giant from getpid() and that should help. :-) Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020226233303.38595Q-100000>