Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:38:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk> Cc: "Kelly Yancey" <kbyanc@alcnet.com>, <crandall@matchlogic.com>, <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: RE: Overcommit and calloc() Message-ID: <199907202138.OAA07272@apollo.backplane.com> References: <l0302092bb3ba6fac9d72@[194.32.164.2]> <l0302092db3ba88f98f68@[194.32.164.2]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:Hi again,
:
:At 10:54 am -0700 20/7/99, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:[...]
:> It should also be noted that unless your system is entirely cpu-bound,
:> there is no cost to the kernel to zero memory because it pre-zero's
:> pages in its idle loop.
:
:Thanks to distributed.net, SETI. et al, idle cycles are fast going out of
:fashion.
:
:--
:Bob Bishop (0118) 977 4017 international code +44 118
The overhead of running seti - the OS allowing the mintick interval
to elapse when it gives seti cpu, that is - is going to be several
orders of magnitude greater then any increase in performance that you
get from trying to optimize calloc().
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199907202138.OAA07272>