Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Sat, 8 Sep 2001 20:14:10 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: cygwin slowdown in current cvs version
Message-ID:	<20010908201410.A22847@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<130160175780 DOT 20010908204017 AT logos-m DOT ru> <127165775081 DOT 20010908221336 AT logos-m DOT ru> <186168543292 DOT 20010908225944 AT logos-m DOT ru> <20010908155203 DOT C12571 AT redhat DOT com> <20010908222326 DOT B937 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <999993477 DOT 9501 DOT 108 DOT camel AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<999993477.9501.108.camel@lifelesswks>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.21i

On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 09:57:56AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>>>It occurred to me today that by moving the large zombies buffer into
>>>the heap, I ended up having fork always copy the array.  I don't know
>>>which is better -- having a large dll with a slower load time vs more
>>>to copy on fork.
>>
>>Hum, I would prefer the larger DLL in that case.  The DLL is loaded
>>once, the fork is pretty often.
>
>The .dll gets reloaded into each new process space every fork anyway.
>I'm not sure which will be faster - a memcpy or disk io :].  I suspect
>some timing tests would be needed to tell for sure :[.

If I am interpreting things correctly, it seems like the malloc is a win
over the dll size -- at least in my tests.

cgf

- Raw text -