Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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