[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (another) problem with mntlib41 tfork() function

To: clausb@hpbeo79.bbn.hp.com (Claus Brod)
Subject: Re: (another) problem with mntlib41 tfork() function
From: itschere@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 93 14:37:13 MET
Cc: mint@atari.archive.umich.edu
In-reply-to: <9312060851.AA04837@hpbeo79.bbn.hp.com>; from "Claus Brod" at Dec 6, 93 09:51:34 am

> > To be more precicly: Each thread costs me 16K (memprot) which are lost forever.
>
> Why 16 KB? I thought the granularity was 8 KB, and the basepage should
> be only one page.

 Well, to be yet more precicely/precisely, shit, accurate: Some cost 16K,
some cost 8K, according to a law which fails to be in my mind. I didn't
do some great measuring but just watched top's output.

 Anyway, that doesn't bother me very much. It's more that they do take
some memory AT ALL. :-(

so long,
TeSche
-- 
PS: If the above written looks weird, than that's because it probably IS.
WhoDunnIt: Torsten Scherer (Schiller, TeSche...)
Technical Faculty, University of Bielefeld, Germany (52'5"N 8'35"E)
EMail: itschere@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de / tesche@dave.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de

References:
- (another) problem with mntlib41 tfork() function
  - From: Claus Brod <clausb@hpbeo79.bbn.hp.com>

Prev by Date: MiNT 1.09: Bug in Fselect
Next by Date: Re: (another) problem with mntlib41 tfork() function
Previous by thread: (another) problem with mntlib41 tfork() function
Next by thread: Re: (another) problem with mntlib41 tfork() function
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread