[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201006021245.59076.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:45:57 +0930
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Brandon Philips <brandon@...p.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>,
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] module: fix bne2 "gave up waiting for init of module libcrc32c"
On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 02:49:50 pm Rusty Russell wrote:
> I wonder if we should just get rid of !CONFIG_UNLOAD then? I have a soft spot
> for it because it keeps us honest and shows how much shit is there simply for
> our poor man's pagable kernel.
>
> Let me compile up a kernel with and without and see what it's really doing
> to us...
With a distro-style config (copied Ubuntu then held down Enter on oldconfig)
it's:
Vmlinux module.o (text/data) Total module size (text/data)
With unload 8976331 24144/1036 47255565/3298004
Without unload 8962022 20551/732 47176064/3222068
Without modules 8723931
So, we pay 14k for module unload support, or 0.2%, and 0.3% across the
modules themselves. There's real runtime costs, too, but someone would need
to annotate and see how often we do inc/dec in a real system.
Not sure that last one is exactly comparable, but it looks like module
support is a significant cost...
Cheers,
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