lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/8] Do not recompute msgmni anymore if explicitely set by user
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:15:00 +0100
> Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@bull.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:32:31 +0100 Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@bull.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>it builds fine, modulo some changes in ipv4 and ipv6 (see attached patch
>>>>- didn't find it in the hot fixes).
>>>
>>>
>>>OK, thanks for checking. Did you confirm that we don't have unneeded code
>>>in vmlinux when CONFIG_PROCFS=n? I guess before-and-after comparison of
>>>the size(1) output would tell us.
>>>
>>>Those networking build problems appear to have already been fixed.
>>>
>>>In future, please quote the compiler error output in the changelog when
>>>sending build fixes or warning fixes, thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>BEFORE:
>>
>>lkernel@akt$ size vmlinux
>> text data bss dec hex filename
>>4318525 454484 462848 5235857 4fe491 vmlinux
>>
>>
>>AFTER:
>>
>>lkernel@akt$ size vmlinux
>> text data bss dec hex filename
>>4323161 454484 462848 5240493 4ff6ad vmlinux
>>
>>which makes it +4636 = +0.11%
>>
>>I've got the details for */built-in.o if needed.
>>
>
>
> That seems to be a lot of increase. Are you sure you had CONFIG_PROCFS=n
> in both cases? If so, the patch must have added a lot of code which will
> never be executed?
>
>
>
Well, the patches that are impacted by procfs being configured or not
are #7 and #8. While the sizes I've sent you are before all patches
applied vs after all patches applied :-(

So here are the "interesting sizes" - all with CONFIG_PROC_FS unset:

before patch 7:
text data bss dec hex filename
4318757 454484 462848 5236089 4fe579 vmlinux

before patch 8:
text data bss dec hex filename
4318853 454484 462848 5236185 4fe5d9 vmlinux +96

after patch 8:
4319055 454484 462848 5236387 4fe6a3 vmlinux +202

The higher difference after patch 8 is because I'm adding the new
interface blocking_notifier_chain_cond_register() even if CONFIG_PROC_FS
is not defined. This is to cover the case where msgmni is set through
the sysctl() syscall (CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL).

Regards,
Nadia



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-14 12:53    [W:0.050 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site