Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264266AbUDSPnV (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:43:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264466AbUDSPnV (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:43:21 -0400 Received: from zero.aec.at ([193.170.194.10]:22539 "EHLO zero.aec.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264266AbUDSPnQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:43:16 -0400 To: cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Process Creation Speed References: <1MFUQ-1zo-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <1MGnU-1U9-19@gated-at.bofh.it> From: Andi Kleen Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:43:10 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1MGnU-1U9-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (Stephan T. Lavavej's message of "Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:50:10 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 863 Lines: 20 "Stephan T. Lavavej" writes: > > I changed my measurement strategy, and I now get about 110 microseconds for > creation and termination of a do-nothing process (fork() followed by > execve()). Statically linking everything gave a significant speedup, which > allowed me to reach that value. This was on a 2.6.x kernel. 110 > microseconds is well within my "doesn't suck" range, so I'm happy - CGI will > be fast enough for my needs, and I can always turn to FastCGI later if > necessary. This just means ld.so is too slow for you. Perhaps you should complain to the glibc people about that? -Andi - 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/