> 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:30 EST