[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       busybox
Subject:    Re: less Idle time with busybox ash as bash vs bash
From:       Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux () googlemail ! com>
Date:       2018-09-09 19:21:24
Message-ID: CAK1hOcPxDN=KQz_J1nUzOnhk81s=Q5nsmhYEsTL+gkVHgVKB1Q () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

In Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 8:11 PM James Hanley <jhanley@dgtlrift.com> wrote:
> We had some bash scripts that we converted to use busybox ash as bash
> (removed any array constructs) and when comparing the two scripts - it
> seems that running them under busybox yields less idle time compared
> to bash.
>
> I was expecting that busybox would (itself) take up more time simply
> because of vfork, but yield more CPU time overall since there would be
> less overhead as a number of the applets would not fork&exec.
>
> Is this expected behavior that busybox overall yields less idle time?

Possibly. You need to give more details, or diagnose it yourself
(find where exactly it happens).
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]