Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:12:17 -0700 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ten thousand small processes Message-ID: <200306271612.h5RGCHPF029635@bitblocks.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "26 Jun 2003 21:26:59 -0000." <20030626212659.51367.qmail@cr.yp.to>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> > Instead of complaining about wasting 78 megabytes and arguing > > about why various proposed solutions fall short and why your > > way is the best, why don't you come up with a patch that > > saves space for small programs? > > Funny. Seems to me that I keep making concrete suggestions---including a > detailed proposal for giving more space to malloc()---and the answer is > consistently ``We really don't care about per-process overhead.'' What's > the benefit of a patch for people who don't even see the problem? If after repeated suggestions people are not "getting it", the reason is usually *not* apathy. Either you are not explaining well or your starting assumptions are different. But show me the code! If I like it I'll use it. "Build it and they will come" -- you should be familiar with that! If enough people like it, may be it will get incorporated in some form. May be.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200306271612.h5RGCHPF029635>