Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 07:35:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 07:35:21 -0500 Received: from epic7.Stanford.EDU ([171.64.15.40]:32391 "EHLO epic7.Stanford.EDU") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 6 Jan 2002 07:35:11 -0500 Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 04:34:56 -0800 (PST) From: Vikram To: Ryan Cumming cc: , Subject: Re: [ingo patch] 2.4.17 benchmarks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 > I'd blame this partially on the reverted fork() execution order bit of his > patch. The child process really should be executed first, and performance is > much improved in that case (COW and things). I don't think we should worry > about breaking obviously incorrect (and already fragile) programs for 2.5.x. ok. and one more thing which i thought i should mention , i used lmbench 2.0 vanilla... i just see that there seems to be 2 patches for 2.0 . i didnt apply them , maybe i should? are they relevant to this context? Vikram > -Ryan > - > 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/