[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200902241157.12067.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:57:10 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Andreas Robinson <andr345@...il.com>
Cc: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>, sam@...nborg.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] module, kbuild: Faster boot with custom kernel.
On Friday 20 February 2009 11:07:05 Andreas Robinson wrote:
> 1. Monolithic: 6.27 s, (0.22). bzImg=3419 kB ramfs=515 kB
> 2. Megamodule: 6.80 s, (0.16). bzImg=2297 kB ramfs=1783 kB
> 3. Insmod list: 6.83 s, (0.07). bzImg=2297 kB ramfs=1942 kB
>
> 10 samples were taken in each case. Standard deviations are in parenthesis.
> The measured times are printk timestamps from a dummy module inserted last.
>
> Reading these benchmark results I can only conclude that my work is
> useless and life has no meaning.
I know that feeling! Performance work tends to be like that. I assume this
is an unpatched kernel, or did you apply some of the stop_machine prevention
/ lock reduction patches?
> So, what's missing or been done wrong here? I expected the difference
> between monolithic and modular to be greater to be honest.
modprobe vs insmod?
You could try copying /lib/modules/`uname -r`/modules.* and using modprobe,
see if the slowdown is actually there.
Thanks for chasing this!
Rusty.
Rusty.
--
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