From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3e1162e60604181424m554a5a1et43ad7398c6cea2df@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:24:49 -0700 From: "David Leimbach" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Install from CD fails In-Reply-To: <20060418210456.GT9931@augusta.math.psu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <775b8d190604181055g7eb9e200ncbf546291a0e098e@mail.gmail.com> <20060418210456.GT9931@augusta.math.psu.edu> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3d6020fe-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 4/18/06, Dan Cross wrote: > On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 07:54:16PM +0100, Charles Forsyth wrote: > > that's often quoted as a consequence, but in practice, > > not that i've seen in ... what is it now? ... at least six or > > seven different systems. i think the trouble is that to get savings > > that make the pain worthwhile you still need various forms of > > discipline, but with shared libraries, people are even less concerned. > > and RSS continues up. > > I think shared libraries are often times misunderstood. I once knew > someone who thought that a context switch was less expensive using > shared libraries than without. > > - Dan C. It certainly wouldn't have any effect on the context switch itself necessarily. But it might have an effect on page faults for code that's loaded dynamically and the swapping that would occur while freeing up free memory to load multiple copies of the same code or not. (though it's been said over and over again that physical memory savings of dynamic libraries rarely happens in practice.)