[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ac3eb2510902180115o4690a335n129e4df695540de0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:15:21 +0100
From: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Andreas Robinson <andr345@...il.com>, sam@...nborg.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] module, kbuild: Faster boot with custom kernel.
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 05:58, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 February 2009 22:23:25 Kay Sievers wrote:
>> Monolithic versus modular kernels usually
>> make about 2+ seconds difference on a recent laptop.
>
> Thanks for the fact injection. How about a megamodule then?
Sounds interesting. The ability to load multiple modules with a single
call may help, if such a call could be handled faster than individual
calls. Modprobe's modules added by dependencies of the requested
module, or modprobe -a could probably use such a facility.
Or do you think, the time the kernel needs to be locked can be
minimized somehow, so we get more parallelism and less serialization?
The current load_module() wraps ~400 lines of pretty heavy code in
stop_machine(), if we could possibly make that window smaller, so that
multiple instances could prepare some of the work in parallel, and
only a fraction of the current work would need to be serialized?
If that could be improved for the common distro case of running ~90
modprobe calls on bootup, many of them running in parallel, linking
~100 modules in, all in a time-frame of ~2-3 seconds -- that maybe
would attack the real "problem"?
Thanks,
Kay
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists