Re: [Fwd: Re: execv bug???]
Re: [Fwd: Re: execv bug???]
- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: execv bug???]
- From: Andrew Gallatin <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:40:53 -0500 (EST)
James Peach writes:
> On 28/01/2008, Andrew Gallatin <email@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > Peter Seebach writes:
> > > In message <email@hidden>, Jonas Maebe wr
> > > ites:
> > > >If it only hurt performance a bit I would never have changed the code
> > > >from using fork (which is what we used on all other *nix ports) into
> > > >using vfork in the first place. But a 25% to 40% slowdown caused by
> > > >173 system calls in the process of compiling about 180 kloc is
> > > >astronomical in my view.
> > >
> > > It does seem unusually large, and I'd be interested in seeing what caused it.
> >
> > There was an interesting fork/exec performance thread quite
> > a while back. (http://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-kernel/2002/Sep/msg00060.html)
> >
> > I see they've fixed the underlying problem in this particular thread
> > (which turned out to be that the fork/exec cost scaled poorly with
> > stack size), but shell scripts (expecially configure) remain painfully
> > slow compared to Linux or Solaris on the same hardware. Lmbench
> > still shows fork+exec taking roughly 5x-10x as long on MacOSX as
> > Linux on the same hardware.
>
> One thing that speeds up configure noticeably for me is to turn off
> the Terminal option that updates the window title with the current
> process name.
I don't use terminal. Or even MacOSX as a desktop.
Drew
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden