Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 6 Jan 2002 04:34:56 -0800 (PST) | From | Vikram <> | Subject | Re: [ingo patch] 2.4.17 benchmarks |
| |
> I'd blame this partially on the reverted fork() execution order bit of his > patch. The child process really should be executed first, and performance is > much improved in that case (COW and things). I don't think we should worry > about breaking obviously incorrect (and already fragile) programs for 2.5.x.
ok.
and one more thing which i thought i should mention , i used lmbench 2.0 vanilla... i just see that there seems to be 2 patches for 2.0 . i didnt apply them , maybe i should? are they relevant to this context?
Vikram
> -Ryan > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |