lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: dso loading question
    On Sun, May 30, 1999 at 03:11:23PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:

    > Putting all the above into the kernel would reduce overall bloat.
    > Think about it. Every damn executable has the same startup code.
    > We'd save a page (few pages?) of code and data on every executable,
    > as well as all the system calls:
    >
    > All open() and close() calls are junk.
    > All mmap() calls may be replaced by direct VM manipulation.
    > All munmap() and mprotect() calls are junk.
    > The fstat() call is junk, since the kernel can just look.
    > The personality() call is junk. (directly read it)
    > The getpid() call is junk. (provide it in user-readable memory)
    >
    > On every exec, that kills 16 system calls and a bit of IO.

    The same arguments could be used to put every application into the kernel.
    The dynamic linker is a pretty complex piece of code that directly acts
    with the execution of the program at run time by dynamic linking. That
    would be a few dozen more syscalls with a kernel dl. Also it's pretty
    libc dependant.

    Ralf

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.019 / U:31.564 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site