less Idle time with busybox ash as bash vs bash

Sam Liddicott sam at liddicott.com
Fri Sep 7 11:19:15 UTC 2018


Bash has some built-in too.

Sam
On 31 Aug 2018 19:11, "James Hanley" <jhanley at 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?
> -Jim
> _______________________________________________
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20180907/efd4812e/attachment.html>


More information about the busybox mailing list