Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!news.kei.com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel!xmission!u.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Shared Library Status ? Date: 8 Mar 1994 22:33:12 GMT Organization: Weber State University, Ogden, UT Lines: 18 Message-ID: <2liuf8$78d@u.cc.utah.edu> References: <hastyCM8Buv.26z@netcom.com> <CGD.94Mar7155635@erewhon.CS.Berkeley.EDU> <BY1pv3m.dysonj@delphi.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.weber.edu In article <BY1pv3m.dysonj@delphi.com> John Dyson <dysonj@delphi.com> writes: >The biggest cost of the shared libraries is in CPU at process startup. Both >USER mode and KERNEL mode. For fairly long running processes like compiles, >the additional overhead is not very significant as you have noted. For >many short running processes (like running lots of users) the overhead >will be more significant. Seems to me that the proper way to handle this would be to make ld.so "sticky" so that is never gets flushed out of the buffer cache. Then the penalty would be a descriptor for the things pages instead of a potential fault-in. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.