Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:22:17 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>, Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The shared /bin and /sbin bikeshed Message-ID: <200011092322.eA9NMHN12920@earth.backplane.com> References: <200011092240.eA9Meu903694@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:Um. And root on a BSD box is equally screwed when there's no memory left
:to map in the text segment of 'ps' which just happens to contain another
:copy of libc.
:
:The difference being that if libc is shared, it's already mapped in for
:the hundreds of other programs using it, so you're *better* off, not
:worse.
This is not exactly true. The difference between the static binary and
shared binary is that *ALL* the text pages in the static binary are
clean. A shared binary dirties many, many more pages to generate the
library relocations - as much as 60K for a simple program that links
into libc.
So in a low memory situation the static binary will win, because clean
pages use the already-existing binary file image as backing store and
do not have to go to swap. They can simply be discarded.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200011092322.eA9NMHN12920>