Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:08:42 -0500
From:      Michael Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org>
To:        "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Cc:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh
Message-ID:  <20031126210842.GM15294@wombat.localnet>
In-Reply-To: <20031126.125138.133913249.imp@bsdimp.com>
References:  <20031126052320.GH15294@wombat.localnet> <p06002014bbea2b21766b@[128.113.24.47]> <20031126144357.GK15294@wombat.localnet> <20031126.125138.133913249.imp@bsdimp.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--8m/hfNLtAhX2NvnO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* M. Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> [031126 14:51]:
> In message: <20031126144357.GK15294@wombat.localnet>
>             Michael Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> writes:
> : They were on a single CPU Athlon 500 with 320MB of RAM.
>=20
> 320MB is not enough RAM not to swap.
>=20
> However, having said that, I think everybody realizes the following:
>=20
> 	1) Dynamic linking is slower.
> 	2) Speed improvements in this area are possible, as
> 	   demonstrated by other projects.
> 	3) PIC code is slower than non-PIC code, in general, and also
> 	   gcc runs about 5-10% slower depending on if you are running
> 	   out of a shared library or a static one.  shared libraries
> 	   must use PIC code (at this time).
> 	4) People like to complain.

Just for the record, I've been running WITH_DYNAMICROOT since nearly the
day it came out and don't *notice* any problems.  Mostly because the
noise of dynamic linking overhead gets lost in the noise of "my hardware
sucks so bad I have to take a vacation during buildworlds."  My startup
takes upwards of 5 minutes anyway, another 45 seconds won't even make me
blink.  I'm certainly not complaining about the performance :)

I only posted those numbers to:

1) Give real world numbers, not "interesting but unrealistic numbers"
2) Show that even worst-case numbers weren't on the level of 40% slowdown.
3) Hopefully help someone figure out where to best improve the dynamic link=
er.

--Mike


--8m/hfNLtAhX2NvnO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/xRZaCczNhKRsh48RAuI9AJ40ZYyVt1sDaIFS4hAxGEEeVnbEQwCfXgTc
QQU3NeIXq77XplpKWNA+1qs=
=WlvR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--8m/hfNLtAhX2NvnO--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031126210842.GM15294>