[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BC7B24C.7040701@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:41:48 -0700
From: Taras Glek <tglek@...illa.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Downsides to madvise/fadvise(willneed) for application startup
On 04/15/2010 03:53 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:43:02 -0700
> Taras Glek<tglek@...illa.com> wrote:
>
>
>> To make matters worse,
>> the compile-time linker + gcc lay out code in a manner that does not
>> correspond to how the resulting executable will be executed(ie the
>> layout is basically random).
>>
> Yes, the linker scrambles the executable's block ordering.
>
> This just isn't an interesting case. World-wide, the number of people
> who compile their own web browser and execute it from the file which ld
> produced is, umm, seven.
>
I'm sorry that you don't find this interesting. I did not suggest that
people compile their own browser to get a perfect layout. This is
something that Mozilla can do when preparing builds and it's also
something distributions can do. It just so happens that large parts of
startup will be very similar for every single firefox install, might as
well layout the binary accordingly.
> So I'd suggest that you always copy the executable to a temp file and
> mv it back before running any timing tests.
>
You mean to get it into a cache or to hope to avoid fragmentation? If
you are suggesting this to avoid measuring the startup overhead of
paging the binary in, I strongly disagee. It is the slowest part of
firefox startup and needs to be addressed.
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