From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by coral.primenet.com.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA04363 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 10:18:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id UAA06809; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 20:13:36 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 20:13:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Zoltan Hidvegi Message-Id: <199608250012.CAA26870@bolyai.cs.elte.hu> Subject: Re: The speed of zsh To: schaefer@nbn.com Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 02:12:45 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu In-Reply-To: <960824141541.ZM453@candle.brasslantern.com> from Bart Schaefer at "Aug 24, 96 02:15:41 pm" Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Eotvos University, Budapest, Hungary Phone: (36 1)2669833 ext: 2667, home phone: (36 1) 2752368 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL16 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <"wiPsX2.0.Jg1.mgv7o"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/2067 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu > } The patch below improves zsh preformance by 10-15%. An other 10% speed > } improvement would be possible by avoiding the > } child_block()/child_unblock() calls whenever possible (other shells do not > } use any system calls while executing builtin-only scritpts). > > I think I said before that we could avoid those if we aren't going to fork > and if the job table is empty. Maybe they're expensive enough to be worth > the extra test. On what do you base the 10% figure? Because zsh time is 26.11s+3.00s, 94% CPU, 30.659 total while ksh is 9.99s+0.00s, 93% CPU, 10.674 total for 9999 bottles of beer. It's clear that zsh spends 10% of the time in system calls and the only system call used by zsh while executing non-forking builtin-only scripts is sigprocmask (which can be easily seen using strace). Zoltan