Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:37:43 +0100 From: Gary Jennejohn <gljennjohn@googlemail.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Mark Felder <feld@feld.me> Subject: Re: rtld optimizations Message-ID: <20110126183743.56f6406c@ernst.jennejohn.org> In-Reply-To: <201101261140.14024.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <AANLkTikwHteyqMfMpy_B-AxQ5ZQ_Z3RKhkNpGN23fXtX@mail.gmail.com> <20110125234911.223d8f75@kan.dnsalias.net> <op.vpw84o0b34t2sn@tech304> <201101261140.14024.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:40:13 -0500 John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 10:25:27 am Mark Felder wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:49:11 -0600, Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > The only extra quirk that said commit > > > does is an optimization of a dlsym() call, which is hardly ever in > > > critical performance path. > > > > It's really not my place to say, but it seems strange that if an > > optimization is available people would ignore it because they don't think > > it's important enough. I don't understand this mentality; if it's not > > going to break anything and it obviously can improve performance in > > certain use cases, why not merge it and make FreeBSD even better? > > Many things that seem obvious aren't actually true, hence the need for > actual testing and benchmarks. > I can't claim to have rigorously benchmarked this, but I am running with a patched ld-elf.so.1 right now and can state that *subjectively* there is absolutely no difference in the perceived performance. firefox, opera and OpenOffice still seem to be dogs the first time they start up. Since this is all about perception I see no benefit in applying the patch, although it doesn't seem to have broken anything either. -- Gary Jennejohn (gj@)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110126183743.56f6406c>