From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Threads: Sewing badges of honor onto a Kernel
Message-ID: <20040301115026.GM16357@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
References: <20040228185347.GE16357@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <5a05620eae26919c3e145b7cb21bf9e5@terzarima.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5a05620eae26919c3e145b7cb21bf9e5@terzarima.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Date: Mon,  1 Mar 2004 11:50:26 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 06c6600c-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 07:44:31PM +0000, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> >>For Linux such experiments had been done and results were very clear -
> >>price of TLB flushes was considerable and that's aside of the complexity
> >>of supporting a lot of mappings with partial VM sharing.  For Plan 9 the
> 
> were those real applications or a synthetic test?  i'm curious what it actually did.
> sorry, wrong question.  can you please point me to the paper and/or file that might answer them?

Hmm...  Probably Ingo Molnar would have all details.  IIRC, that was on real
applications, but back then I was dealing with filesystem side of things and
not much else, so that's second-hand information.  I can ask him for details
if you want them; I certainly agree that e.g. presense of shared libraries
changes the picture, so those results do not apply directly to Plan 9 and if
somebody really cares they should try and compare for normal Plan 9 workloads.