Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 11 Jun 2011 23:17:03 +0300
From:      Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To:        Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
Cc:        Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [RFC] shipping kernels with default modules?
Message-ID:  <20110611201703.GO48734@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
In-Reply-To: <D76B9160-327F-454F-AAD2-567D837BCD68@bsdimp.com>
References:  <BANLkTin2AwKRT7N6HWqBctJcT72_mR=Otg@mail.gmail.com> <4DF3B532.6020908@FreeBSD.org> <D76B9160-327F-454F-AAD2-567D837BCD68@bsdimp.com>

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

--YbCBl//VW3xXyIiK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 02:00:20PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
>=20
> On Jun 11, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 6/11/2011 2:21 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> >> Hi guys,
> >>=20
> >> Has there been any further thought as of late about shipping kernels
> >> with modules only by default, rather than monolithic kernels?
> >>=20
> >> I tried this experiment a couple years ago and besides a little
> >> trickery with ACPI module loading, it worked out fine.
> >>=20
> >> Is there any reason we aren't doing this at the moment? Eg by having a
> >> default loader modules list populated from the kernel config file?
> >=20
> > Has anyone benchmarked monolithic vs. modular? I think that should be d=
one before we move in this direction.
>=20
> I haven't noticed a difference, but I haven't done any specific benchmark=
ing.

There might be some measurable difference on i386, where we use dso for
modules. As a consequence, the overhead of GOT/PLT indirection, and, more
important, stolen %ebx on the register-starved architecture, may make
a difference. I doubt that any difference can be measured on amd64.

--YbCBl//VW3xXyIiK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk3zzT8ACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4jOPQCfV62nloWb6iVteeZ5dGfMLLPJ
BkoAn2hGp2Z6Qg6XxRbHa/I5Bzj6X8a3
=jA/5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--YbCBl//VW3xXyIiK--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110611201703.GO48734>