From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Aug 2 14:23:17 1995 Return-Path: questions-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id OAA01136 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 14:23:17 -0700 Received: from halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.159]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA01128 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 14:23:14 -0700 Received: by halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu; (5.65/1.1.3.6) id AA19365; Wed, 2 Aug 1995 17:22:54 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 17:22:54 -0400 From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <9508022122.AA19365@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> To: davidg@root.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: 2.0.5 Eager to go into swap In-Reply-To: <199508022102.OAA00999@corbin.Root.COM> References: <199508022102.OAA00999@corbin.Root.COM> Sender: questions-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk < said: > to do about it. Ironically, shared libraries are supposed to help this > situation, but in FreeBSD they are so un-optimally ordered that applications > wind up consuming as much memory as they would if built non-shared (static). > The solution to this problem is to order the routines so that commonly used > ones are all grouped together, and further group together related routines. > This is difficult for two reasons: first, we don't have the statistics to know > how to order the routines properly, and second, our library build procedure > really doesn't allow for this. Actually, the same `lorder ${OBJS} | tsort' technique ought to have some beneficial effect. This doesn't group together commonly-used routines, but it does group modules near each other based on dependency. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... wollman@lcs.mit.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance. Opinions not those of| It is a bond more powerful than absence. We like people MIT, LCS, ANA, or NSA| who like Shashish. - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant