On Fri, 2017-09-29 at 01:35 +0530, Gargi Sharma wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Rik van Riel <r...@surriel.com> > wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-09-29 at 01:09 +0530, Gargi Sharma wrote: > > > > > 1000 processes that just sleep and sit around without doing > > > anything(100 second sleep and then exit). > > > > Is that with or without your patches? > > > > How does it compare to a kernel with(out) your patches? > > Ah thanks for pointing this out. Those were without the patches. > Here are the stats for easier comparison. > > With Patches Without patches > pstree > real 0m0.542s real 0m0.859s > user 0m0.335s user 0m0.536s > sys 0m0.150s sys 0m0.172s > > ps > real 0m0.722s real 0m0.918s > user 0m0.064s user 0m0.100s > sys 0m0.162s sys 0m0.172s > > readdir > real 0m0.080s real 0m0.092s > user 0m0.000s user 0m0.000s > sys 0m0.021s sys 0m0.020s
So your patches speed up the use of /proc? I suspect pstree and ps benefit from the simplification and speedup of find_pid_ns, which is called from find_task_by_pid_ns. That is great news. -- All Rights Reversed.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
