linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/14] init: deps: order network interfaces by link order

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 17 Oct 2015 21:58:25 +0200
From:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] init: deps: order network interfaces by link order

Am 17.10.2015 um 21:36 schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 09:14:34PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> Am 17.10.2015 um 21:08 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That isn't a flag day thing. It's a config option everyone can turn on and
>>>> off whenever he wants.
>>>
>>> That's a flag-day thing. We've done it (drm comes to mind - several times).
>>>
>>> I'm disappointed, because I _know_ I pointed you in the direction of
>>> stable sorting about a month ago. I really had hoped you'd have taken
>>> that into account.
>>
>> It's impossible to take it into account because I don't want to miss the
>> parallelize functionality. And without that, all the stuff doesn't offer
>> enough benefits to be worse the effort but just adds some time necessary to
>> do the sorting. It might solve the deferred probe problems, but without much
>> benefit.
>
> Again, parallelizing does not solve anything, and causes more problems
> _and_ makes things take longer.  Try it, we have done it in the past and
> proven this, it's pretty easy to test :)

I've tested it, otherwise I wouldn't have posted the patches.

Unfortunately it's quiet a lot of work to add dependencies for everything.

So maybe I'm able to offer some better numbers in a year or such, when I 
was bored often enough to add more dependencies for initcalls.

Not to mention that small changes in the order can have quiet big 
differences in the boot time, so it's quiet hard to parallelize stuff 
(add dependencies) correctly like e.g. the pci/acpi/processor stuff. 
Especially because many reasons for the current order aren't mentioned 
in the source and are hard to see without specific knowledge about the HW.

Alexander Holler
--
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/