Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 02/18/2012 10:43, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote: > > Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> loading modules through loader.conf is > >> veeeeeerrrrryyyyyy sssssllllloooooowwwwww ... > > > > Is it noticeably slower to load (say) a 6MB kernel + 2MB of > > modules than to load an 8MB kernel? > > I don't know, that wasn't the problem I was trying to solve.
Given the context of the thread, this: > >> loading modules through loader.conf is > >> veeeeeerrrrryyyyyy sssssllllloooooowwwwww ... seemed to be an objection to modularizing the kernel. Hence my question: is it in fact noticeably slower to load a minimal kernel plus needed modules than to load a kernel that had all those modules built in? Based on the below, I think we agree that the answer is likely to be no, even if all the modules in question were loaded via loader.conf (and the modular version might well load noticeably _faster_ if a sizeable fraction of the modules could be loaded via kld_list instead). > If your question is, "6 + 2-in-loader-conf" then I imagine that > it would be about the same speed, maybe a little slower due to > extra file open-read-close cycles. If it's "6 + 2-in-kld_list" > then I imagine it would be quite a bit faster than an 8 M kernel > ... That is what I would expect, also. > but I look forward to the results of your testing. :) You're asking me to test _your_ assertion? I had expected that you would already have the data to back it up. _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
