Re: mbuf_pullup practically useless

• Subject: Re: mbuf_pullup practically useless
• From: Platon Fomichev <email@hidden>
• Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:18:54 +0400
• Delivered-to: email@hidden
• Delivered-to: email@hidden

Hey Andrew

Best regards,
            Stauff__

On Aug 27, 2007, at 4:58 PM, Andrew Gallatin wrote:

Platon Fomichev writes:

As another side-note I am constantly in question why does ./configure
like scripts take an exceptionally big amount of time on even most
powerful Mac Pro's compared to FreeBSD? Is this related to fork()/ exec
() or sh port itself or something else? Anyone ever did some research
on this?

Ah, one of my pet peeves :)

At least part of the reason for this is the decision to use a 32-bit
kernel with a 4GB address space rather than a 64-bit kernel on 64-bit
hardware.  Every syscall to the kernel takes a bit longer because
copying the syscall arguments is no longer just a simple bcopy with a
fault handler.  This is because, unlike on most other *nixes, the
kernel and the application don't share an address space.  I'm pointing
my finger at this because I've seen similar slowdowns running 32-bit
linux with the 4G/4G kernel/user address space patch applied.

Drew

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-kernel mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-kernel/email@hidden

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: mbuf_pullup practically useless
    • From: Andrew Gallatin <email@hidden>

• Prev by Date: Re: mbuf_pullup practically useless
• Next by Date: RE: Poll support implementation
• Previous by thread: Re: mbuf_pullup practically useless
• Next by thread: Re: mbuf_pullup practically useless
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread