[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZCMpSJzXg/+JSHNY@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 10:52:08 -0700
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>,
Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>,
"kbus >> Keith Busch" <kbusch@...nel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Adam Manzanares <a.manzanares@...sung.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mm: intorduce __GFP_UNMAPPED and unmapped_alloc()
On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 06:37:13PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 10:18:50AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > differences with eBPF programs is that modules *can* be rather large
> > in size. What is the average size of modules? Well let's take a look:
> >
> > mcgrof@...twin /mirror/code/mcgrof/linux-next (git::master)$ find ./
> > -name \*.ko| wc -l
> > 9173
>
> ummm ... wc -c, surely?
That's the number of allmodconfig modules found.
mcgrof@...ton ~/linux (git::sysctl-next)$ find ./ -name \*.ko| head -2
./arch/x86/crypto/twofish-x86_64.ko
./arch/x86/crypto/serpent-avx2.ko
mcgrof@...ton ~/linux (git::sysctl-next)$ find ./ -name \*.ko| head -2 |
wc -l
2
mcgrof@...ton ~/linux (git::sysctl-next)$ find ./ -name \*.ko| head -2 |
wc -c
70
wc -c would give a lot more. wc -l gives me the module count.
> > mcgrof@...twin /mirror/code/mcgrof/linux-next (git::master)$ find ./
> > -name \*.ko| xargs stat -c "%s - %n" | sort -n -k 1 -r | tail
> > -$((9173-5)) | awk 'BEGIN {sum=0} {sum+=$1} END {print sum/NR/1024}'
> > 160.54
>
> ... which invalidates all of these.
Not sure ? But regardless the *.text* lookup is what we care for though
which was later.
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists