On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > It is very frustrating to spend that much time with only little gains here > and there (and BusyBox-w32 is simply not robust enough yet, apart from > also not showing a significant improvement in performance). You still use busybox-w32? It's amazing that people still use it after the linux subsystem comes. busybox has a lot of commands built in (i.e. no new processes) and unless rmyorston did something more, the "fork" in ash shell should be as cheap as it could be: it simply serializes data and sends to the new process. If performance does not improve, I guess the process creation cost dominates. There's not much we could do except moving away from the zillion processes test framework: either something C-based or another scripting language (ok I don't want to bring this up again) -- Duy
