From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 11 20:07:35 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456961065676; Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:07:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04A88FC14; Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:07:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.0.63] (63.imp.bsdimp.com [10.0.0.63]) (authenticated bits=0) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p5BK2dIn056710 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:03:15 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <4DF3B12C.8020505@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:02:54 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9583277B-6EC0-4B7F-9640-2B128A96C6B8@bsdimp.com> References: <201106110908.p5B98kkE066709@svn.freebsd.org> <4DF3B12C.8020505@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (harmony.bsdimp.com [10.0.0.6]); Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:03:15 -0600 (MDT) Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Robert Watson , Joel Dahl Subject: Re: svn commit: r222980 - in head/sys: amd64/conf i386/conf X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:07:35 -0000 On Jun 11, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 6/11/2011 6:07 AM, Robert Watson wrote: >> To me, this seems like the wrong direction. Over the last decade, = we've >> been trying to move away from conditional compilation of features to >> having them be loadable as modules. >=20 > FWIW, I agree. I'm wondering though, is there still a performance = penalty for modules? My understanding in the past was that there is, = although for most use cases it's in the statistical noise. Is that still = true? At run time, I believe that's true. At load time, lots of modules can = take a few seconds longer. Warner