Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:57:00 -0500 From: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> Cc: sendtomatt@gmail.com, rank1seeker@gmail.com, dougb@freebsd.org, perryh@pluto.rain.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 8 to 9: Kernel modularization -- did it change? Message-ID: <CAOgwaMv5UYgdWdD3VK7zHi5DzrPN1xh2VtW7zbq0XeWNPMCMYw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120220151409.Horde.NYT-HpjmRSRPQlUxo1tMYtA@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <CAOjFWZ6WM1bLEwaBiUE50Gj4MrwxefDWFb85ecRtYkSDuZ0erg@mail.gmail.com> <mailpost.1329495670.7246668.67851.mailing.freebsd.hackers@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw> <4F3E8225.9030501@FreeBSD.org> <E1RyRKJ-000Ioa-Ec@hans3> <4F3E8C26.3080900@FreeBSD.org> <E1RyRq0-000Iqy-3l@hans3> <4F3EA5F2.9070804@gmail.com> <E1RyTZo-000J0R-0Y@hans3> <4F3EAE5F.6070903@gmail.com> <E1RyUv6-000J5e-0E@hans3> <20120217.220802.988.2@DOMY-PC> <4F3EDEBC.7040703@gmail.com> <4F3EFB70.5000102@FreeBSD.org> <4f3ff151.FznGzC6RC0a5qBKx%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <4F403C5E.4000104@FreeBSD.org> <4f411fbc.5xpQwqtOGVzi8G4D%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <20120220151409.Horde.NYT-HpjmRSRPQlUxo1tMYtA@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Alexander Leidinger < Alexander@leidinger.net> wrote: > Quoting perryh@pluto.rain.com (from Sun, 19 Feb 2012 08:13:48 -0800): > > Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >>> On 02/18/2012 10:43, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: >>> > Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> >> loading modules through loader.conf is >>> >> veeeeeerrrrryyyyyy sssssllllloooooowwwwww ... >>> > >>> > Is it noticeably slower to load (say) a 6MB kernel + 2MB of >>> > modules than to load an 8MB kernel? >>> >>> I don't know, that wasn't the problem I was trying to solve. >>> >> >> Given the context of the thread, this: >> >> >> loading modules through loader.conf is >>> >> veeeeeerrrrryyyyyy sssssllllloooooowwwwww ... >>> >> >> seemed to be an objection to modularizing the kernel. Hence my >> > > Looks more like an opinion. In fact, I work on a modularized kernel config > which I want to commit to -current at some point (for those which do not > care how long it takes to boot the system). > > The goal of my work is to produce something like GENERIC+more, just as > much as possible loaded as kld's (the "+more" part is the result of a poll > I did on stable@, it contains only stuff which can not be loaded as a > kld, and I provide a loader.conf which disables the parts which would cause > a major change in behavior). Currently I'm doing some compile testing, I > should be able to provide something for review soon (on current@). > > Bye, > Alexander. > > -- > WORK: > The blessed respite from screaming kids and > soap operas for which you actually get paid. > > http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 > http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137 > > I think , inclusion of a scheduler ( 4BSD , ULE , etc. ) selection facility into loader.conf will be a useful improvement , because it seems that schedulers are not equivalent . In that way , it will be possible to select a scheduler for compute intensive processing , or input/output intensive processing , or user interaction intensive processing . My choice would be to have options in boot menu as a best approach . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOgwaMv5UYgdWdD3VK7zHi5DzrPN1xh2VtW7zbq0XeWNPMCMYw>