[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BC2A58A.7070801@mozilla.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 21:46:02 -0700
From: Taras Glek <tglek@...illa.com>
To: drepper@...il.com
CC: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Downsides to madvise/fadvise(willneed) for application startup
On 04/11/2010 09:43 PM, drepper@...il.com wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 19:27, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> wrote:
>> Yes, every binary/library starts with this 512b read. It is requested
>> by ld.so/ld-linux.so, and will trigger a 4-page readahead. This is not
>> good readahead. I wonder if ld.so can switch to mmap read for the
>> first read, in order to trigger a larger 128kb readahead.
>
> We first need to know the sizes of the segments and their location in
> the binary. The binaries we use now are somewhat well laid out. The
> read-only segment starts at offset 0 etc. But this doesn't have to be
> the case. The dynamic linker has to be generic. Also, even if we
> start mapping at offset zero, now much to map? The file might contain
> debug info which must not be mapped. Therefore the first read loads
> enough of the headers to make all of the decisions. Yes, we could do
> a mmap of one page instead of the read. But that's more expansive in
> general, isn't it?
Can this not be cached for prelinked files? I think it is reasonable to
optimize the gnu dynamic linker to optimize for an optimal layout
produced by gnu tools of the same generation.
Taras
--
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