From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 24 22:30:51 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B95916A4CE for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:30:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns2.gnf.org (ns2.gnf.org [63.196.132.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2949B43F3F for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:30:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gtetlow@gnf.org) Received: from EXCHCLUSTER01.lj.gnf.org (exch01.lj.gnf.org [172.25.10.19]) by ns2.gnf.org (8.12.8p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAP6Ue32080817 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:30:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gtetlow@gnf.org) Received: from roark.gnf.org ([172.25.24.15]) by EXCHCLUSTER01.lj.gnf.org with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:30:39 -0800 Received: from roark.gnf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by roark.gnf.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hAP6UdSW060724 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:30:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gtetlow@gnf.org) Received: (from gtetlow@localhost) by roark.gnf.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAP6Udip060723 for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:30:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gtetlow) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:30:39 -0800 From: Gordon Tetlow To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20031125063039.GB53437@roark.gnf.org> References: <200311250106.hAP16qNp018512@realtime.exit.com> <200311251212.59933.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <16322.46739.544236.261395@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="U+BazGySraz5kW0T" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16322.46739.544236.261395@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Nov 2003 06:30:39.0910 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4EFAC60:01C3B31D] Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:30:51 -0000 --U+BazGySraz5kW0T Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 08:55:31PM -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote: >=20 > Daniel O'Connor writes: >=20 > > Why didn't you pipe up when this was discussed _long_ ago? >=20 > In the orginal thread, there was an agreement that the performance > would be measured BEFORE the default was changed, and the default > would only be changed if there was no measurable performance impact. > I believe sam@ asked for this. As far as I know, performance > measurments were never done. Instead, the switch was thrown just > before the code freeze. That's not true. I was asked to present numbers so we could make a determination as to what the impact was. It was never said that it would only be the default iff there was no performance impact. FWIW, I did find that the boot process took a performance hit, I also found that the average worldstone did not increase appreciably (ie, less than 1%). I took these numbers to re@ when I was asked to flip the dynamic switch and the feeling was that the overhead was worth the tradeoff for functionality. Finally, I must ask if anyone has evidence that this has slowed down anything other than microbenchmarks? My point of view was it did slow down the boot, but so did rcNG and no one seemed to mind about that. Also, you don't write time-sensitive applications in shell so the dynamic link overhead is not noticed there. People asked me about the affect on periodic. My response is why do you care if your periodic took 1 extra second to run (on the outside) due to dynamic linking overhead. It's just crazy. In summary, I have yet to see a compelling arguement to consider backing out the dynamic linking changes I've put in. I've read all of the messages in all of the 3+ huge threads and I'm still as resolved today as I was when I made the commit. Frankly, I'm surprised people didn't yell at me when I massively restructured the tree to put libraries in /lib. Turning on dynamic linking was the most minor part from the architectural point of view but is getting the most vitriol. How typical. -gordon --U+BazGySraz5kW0T Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/wvcPRu2t9DV9ZfsRAs1qAKCnEtOJndkrejz2nNzDB9GBIcAdcgCfTWNz R5Y6gK3P4+VRAQV/xEapnG8= =Ru7w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --U+BazGySraz5kW0T--