Re: mbuf_pullup practically useless
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
Hey Andrew
Thanks for quite a complete answer! Btw speaking about 32-bit kernel
- will Leopard feature a full 64-bit kernel? From what I've heard
this seems to be the case. Hope things will improve then a bit.
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:
This email sent to email@hidden