From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 25 13:16:08 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 D6EE616A4CE; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:16:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 190B343FB1; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:16:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) hAPLFwiF081343; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:15:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id hAPLFwSG081342; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:15:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:15:58 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200311252115.hAPLFwSG081342@apollo.backplane.com> To: Kris Kennaway References: <20031125025621.453732A8FC@canning.wemm.org> <200311250311.hAP3BTCO075916@apollo.backplane.com> <20031125150700.GA48007@madman.celabo.org> <20031125201421.GB54467@madman.celabo.org> <20031125205009.GA38563@xor.obsecurity.org> cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: "M. Warner Losh" 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 21:16:09 -0000 :> is the path you've chosen to go then you have an obligation not to :> tear out major existing system capabilities, such as the ability to :> generate static binaries, in the process. : :If this is what you think has happened, you're living in some parallel :fantasy universe. I am simply repeating the reasoning being used for going to a dynamic root. Forgive me if I misread it, but I believe the argument was that FreeBSD-5 was migrating to NSS and NSS's DLL mechanism does not work in a static world, therefore dynamic becomes the default. If I am wrong and NSS's DLL mechanism can be used in a static world, please correct me! So exactly how far do you intend to go with NSS? Because it seems to me that FreeBSD-5's goal is to start to depend on the DLL capabilities. If the goal is an intention to depend on DLL then you damn well need to make it work with static ELF binaries. It's that simple. :> There is a lot of circular reasoning going on here... it's the same sort :> of circular reasoning that John uses to justify some of the more esoteric :> scheduling mechanisms in -current. A because of B because of A, and :> to hell with anyone who wanted to use C. : :Keep the ad homenim attacks to yourself, buster! This was uncalled-for. : :Kris Well, the scheduler arguments are more involved but I am not incorrect here. E.G. the priority borrowing exists to work around problems with the mutex implementation. Preemption by non-interrupts threads also exists to work around problems with the mutex implementation. Preemptive cpu migration could be turned off fairly easily and doesn't really count. The priority borrowing is a mess, though. You may think its the best thing since sliced bread but I think it unnecessarily complicates both the scheduler core and the programming model. -Matt