Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 19:50:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Huey <billh@mag.ucsd.edu> To: dyson@iquest.net Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: High syscall overhead? Message-ID: <199906130250.TAA02805@mag.ucsd.edu> In-Reply-To: <199906121657.LAA06439@dyson.iquest.net.> from "John S. Dyson" at Jun 12, 99 11:57:41 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Wes Peters said: > > > > Try a more meaningful benchmark, one that actually does something in > > the kernel before returning, and see how they do. Try calling kill > > or socket/close a few hundred thousand times and see how they do. This will only test how fast the kernel memory allocator will perform with small object. Linux will do well since the memory allocation stuff is pretty standard issue for kernel memory allocators. > Think of it like this: since alot of desktops sit in idle loops much > of the time, perhaps the Linux philosophy has been to improve such > behavior :-). The Linux philosophy already has better performance and will also get you much stronger TCP/IP user land copy performance under SMP since it releases locks around the data copy. This certain is much better that the over simplistic single MP in FreeBSD, which has since been abandon in the Linux kernel. But I guess technical denial works in the FreeBSD community. ;-) More smilie faces ;-) ;-) ;-) > John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, > dyson@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid > jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. bill > > -- > John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, > dyson@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid > jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906130250.TAA02805>