From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:16:23 -0400 From: Dan Cross To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Install from CD fails Message-ID: <20060419031623.GX9931@augusta.math.psu.edu> References: <3e1162e60604181424m554a5a1et43ad7398c6cea2df@mail.gmail.com> <79f0f2cef345552f7f8efc922440bfcd@collyer.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <79f0f2cef345552f7f8efc922440bfcd@collyer.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3e714c48-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 07:53:30PM -0700, geoff@collyer.net wrote: > [...] > > We scratched our heads about what in the world the kernel was doing > for 42ms per fork. Even on a Sun 3/50, that's a lot of cycles. > > This was a long time ago, but it's some actual measurements. Hmm. Weird. If it had been doing an exec, it would have been easy to point the finger at the run time loader, but if all you did was fork? My guess was reference counting pages in the shared libraries. Did you ever find out where the time went? - Dan C.