lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 22/23] sysctl arm: Remove binary sysctl support
> Can you name one binary sysctl value that gets accessed more
> than a few times during the execution of a vaguely common
> application? We're talking about microseconds for typically
> write-once or read-once settings.

For example shell scripts tend to execute programs quite a lot.

> The question is just how many sysctl values you regard as both
> common and performance critical.

Very little, I suspect in fact it's only one.

> > > in glibc-ports for the support of arm inb/outb. The only other
> > > use in older glibc was checking to see if we ran on an SMP kernel.
> >
> > That older glibc is widely deployed. And it won't go away next year.
>
> So? Most users of old glibc are also using old kernels, and they

How do you know? At least here it's quite common to use new kernels
with old user land.

> can still use the config option for the compatibility code.
> There wouldn't even be a performance penalty over new glibc with
> new kernels which already use procfs.

When he drops the sysctl(2) API completely the old userland will
be unhappy.

> > I just think you should have two flavours of emulation layer:
> > full and "common sysctls". This can be probably done with the same
> > code and some strategic ifdefs.
>
> If it's just about code size, I totally wouldn't bother. Just put the
> emulation code in loadable module and add a 'printk("Warning, %s is
> using sysctl %s, wasting %d kb of kernel memory")' to it's module_init
> function.

That means non modular kernels can't support old userland.

-Andi
--
ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-09 16:49    [W:0.228 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site