From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May  1 11:54:07 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B0F106566B
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  1 May 2012 11:54:07 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from erik@cederstrand.dk)
Received: from csmtp2.one.com (csmtp2.one.com [91.198.169.22])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C56D68FC12
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Tue,  1 May 2012 11:54:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.187.69] (unknown [87.54.33.251])
	by csmtp2.one.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3E13E303DA1E;
	Tue,  1 May 2012 11:53:59 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Erik Cederstrand <erik@cederstrand.dk>
In-Reply-To: <A79EE48D-A2AC-4D35-B156-1F58D17F77DD@kientzle.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 13:53:58 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AF37B4BF-69D5-41D3-819A-0252911CBC89@cederstrand.dk>
References: <20120426093548.GR2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
	<20120426134140.GF14350@lo0.su>
	<CADLo838sdUT2e+7j8vCyOmDithLsh3kwDd_z04dWaPoiMphPDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4F99ACF9.2050609@infracaninophile.co.uk>
	<CADLo83_sr=13H=9nnrdge0jJaOh5Bk2N_gg=Gf-uYhwM8jm7Xg@mail.gmail.com>
	<42D8809D-0E99-47A5-802F-71991B5B0B8D@cederstrand.dk>
	<A79EE48D-A2AC-4D35-B156-1F58D17F77DD@kientzle.com>
To: Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: freebsd-current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 11:54:07 -0000

Den 01/05/2012 kl. 07.52 skrev Tim Kientzle:
>=20
> On Apr 30, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
>>=20
>> Can anyone explain to me why the dynamically linked version is =
significantly slower? What are the extra steps involved compared to a =
statically linked binary?
>=20
> At the risk of dramatically over-simplifying=85.
>=20
> When a static binary is started by the kernel, it does the following:
>  * Initializes some libc internals.
>  * Calls main.
>=20
> When a dynamic binary is started by the kernel, it does the following:
>  * Initializes some libc internals.
>  * For every dynamic library referenced by this executable:
>       - loads the dynamic library into memory
>       - fixes up references
>  * Calls main
>=20
> The process of loading the required libraries and fixing up references
> can be quite time-consuming.

Thanks for the explanation. In the previous 'make index' benchmark by =
Chris, make is called very often, which means the dynamic libraries =
should already be loaded into memory after the first run, right? Which =
means the extra time is being spent fixing up references?

Erik=