Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:44:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:44:27 -0500 Received: from cs.columbia.edu ([128.59.16.20]:33999 "EHLO cs.columbia.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:44:25 -0500 Subject: Re: fork/sh/hello microbenchmark performance in chroot From: Shaya Potter To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1047606184.10046.9.camel@zaphod> References: <1047606184.10046.9.camel@zaphod> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1047606869.7428.12.camel@zaphod> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 Date: 13 Mar 2003 20:54:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1130 Lines: 29 in a followup, the only thing I can tell difference b/w the 2 runs (under strace and inside and outside of the chroot) is that within the chroot, after every fork() I see a SIGSTOP on the child. anyone have any idea why this is happening? On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 20:43, Shaya Potter wrote: > I'm trying to play with our a homebrew version of lmbench's fork > benchmark which exec's sh to run a "hello world" program. On normal > 2.4.18 (UP 933mhz p3) it runs in about .2s However, within a chrooted > environment I'm looking at 1s. > > Anyone knows why this runs significantly slower within a chroot? > > thanks, > > shaya > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/