Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 10:16:56 +0000 From: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libc/libsys split coming soon Message-ID: <7E8133B7-4BD5-42AB-8B16-A10F59295F28@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAGudoHGoSW4Zwa9PT_O7AeQX%2B8Q9PKmoQBm9HrmdKD5PNfE0uw@mail.gmail.com> References: <Zb1tTz5LXuVQ5Caj@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> <CAGudoHGoSW4Zwa9PT_O7AeQX%2B8Q9PKmoQBm9HrmdKD5PNfE0uw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3 Feb 2024, at 09:15, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote: >=20 > Binary startup is very slow, for example execve of a hello world > binary in a Linux-based chroot on FreeBSD is faster by a factor of 2 > compared to a native one. As such perf-wise this looks like a step in > the wrong direction. Have you profiled this? Is the Linux version using BIND_NOW (which = comes with a load of problems, but it often the default for Linux = systems and reduces the number of slow-path entries into rtld)? Do they = trigger the same number of CoW faults? Is there a path in rtld that=E2=80= =99s slower than the equivalent ld-linux.so path? David=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7E8133B7-4BD5-42AB-8B16-A10F59295F28>