On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:22:10 -0400 (EDT),
Ricky Beam <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
>>Oh? That would be a bug. Which modules does it fail to see?
>ALL of them. Everything is under subdirs of kernel which depmod isn't
>scanning. (pcmcia is there by symlinks)
Any modutils >= 2.3.12 will scan /lib/modules/`uname -r`/kernel. Check
your version of depmod.
>>So, go benchmark "insmods per second". I want to see a %age from some
>>controlled test where the only differences are the module arrangement
>>and the version of modutils used.
>>Then tell us about what use case you have where this metric matters.
>It's attitudes like that that have made Microsoft products a laughing stock.
>A millisecond here and there adds up over time. In case you've forgotten,
>Linux _used_ to run very well on 386 and 486 systems (in the 25 to 50 MHz
>range.) What's the point in making processors faster if everyone just
>wastes the increase being "correct and simple"?
The extra directory structure only costs during depmod processing (once
per boot) and modprobe/insmod while finding the module. Unless you are
doing 1000's of insmod per second, the difference from the extra
directory structures is down in the noise. As for your earlier point
about most of the directories only containing one module, it all
depends on your .config. Try building a kernel with all the modules
turned on and see what you get.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:31 EST