Duane Rettig <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
| Ulrich Hobelmann <email@example.com> writes:
| > George Neuner wrote:
| >>>>> mmap()ed files are also cached, no?
| >>>> No. Mapped files are handled by the virtual memory system and all
| >>>> modern systems DMA pages directly to/from disk with no buffering.
| >>> Seriously? I thought every common OS would buffer/cache most pages...
| >> Seriously, you need to read up on MMUs, virtual memory and demand
| >> paging systems.
| > What I (think I) know about modern OSes is that they cache everything
| > from disk, I suppose by associating file blocks with in-memory-blocks.
| > Surely I could be wrong...
Ulrich isn't wrong, George. The "global page cache" has pretty much
completely replaced the "file block cache" in recent versions of the
VM systems of most decent operating systems [e.g., Irix, *BSD, Linux].
Pretty much *everything* is cached using the same mechanism [which
does have its downsides sometimes, to be sure.].
| > like to know where you got your information that mmap()ed data isn't
| > cached at all, because I don't believe it.
| The caching sometimes happens at first access, and not at mmap time.
True. In particular, these days executable files are simply mmap'd
into memory, and pages only fault in from the ELF (say) file as they
are first accessed.
| It depends on whether there is backing for the mmap, or if it is
| "MAP_NORESERVE", which means that it is using "virtual swap" (which is
| different than virtual memory). There is also copy-on-write options
| which sometimes create new pages but which don't write them back out -
| this allows many processes to map the same file without disturbing the
| original, and yet without incurring the extra virtual page cost of a
| private mapping; any pages which have not been written to can use the
| same actual page across process boundaries.
Quite true! And in fact, the page caching in both FreeBSD & Linux is
so good that even though CMUCL's typical image file is *huge* compared
to CLISP's, on the second (and subsequent) executions, CMUCL starts up
slightly *faster* than CLISP!! [Aside: Sam, I haven't tested this on
the latest version of CLISP, so my apologies if it's no longer true.]
The following was done with a laptop running FreeBSD-4.10 on a 1.8 GHz
Athlon with 1 GiB of RAM [but a *slow* disk]:
$ cat test_clisp.lisp
(format t "hello world!~%")
$ time-hist ./test_clisp.lisp
Timing 100 runs of: ./test_clisp.lisp
$ cat test_cmucl.lisp
(format t "hello world!~%")
$ time-hist ./test_cmucl.lisp
Timing 100 runs of: ./test_cmucl.lisp
The point is *not* that one is a few milliseconds faster than the
other, but that on such a system "bigger" is not necessarily "slower".
[A secondary point is that CMUCL is perfectly acceptable for simple
"scripting", *including* low-traffic CGI scripting! For high-traffic
sites, of course, one would use compiled code in a persistent Lisp
Rob Warnock <firstname.lastname@example.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607