Article View: comp.bugs.sys5
Article #318Re: Shell Scripts v. Command Options
From: Dan Bernstein
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 1991 17:08
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 1991 17:08
16 lines
1209 bytes
1209 bytes
In article <18959@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes: > Had you looked at the test data you would see that the CPU time is > actually spent in the kernel executing code. Apparently the system is idle in your tests; many if not most schedulers will add disk wait time to the system time of the current process. > In the case you gave of a large page size architecture, fork() should > still take very little time since there need not be any physical I/O > unless the available memory is consumed Available (physical) memory is quite often consumed, and the average executable is swapped out. At NYU we actually use computers for computing things, ya know? ---Dan
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<19394:Jan1917:08:2691@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstndReferences:
<18946@rpp386.cactus.org> <1249:Jan1811:37:3991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <18959@rpp386.cactus.org>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.bugs.sys5 Subject: Re: Shell Scripts v. Command Options Message-ID: <19394:Jan1917:08:2691@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 19 Jan 91 17:08:26 GMT References: <18946@rpp386.cactus.org> <1249:Jan1811:37:3991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <18959@rpp386.cactus.org> Organization: IR Lines: 16