Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Portable binary modules | From | Kjetil Torgrim Homme <> | Date | 09 Dec 1999 01:13:19 +0100 |
| |
[Horst von Brand]
> The locking primitives are inlined for performance, and radically > different in both cases. The UP kernel has a definite advantage > speedwise by _not_ handling SMP locks. Your idea is to compile > everything as SMP then?
Just the module. If inserted into a UP kernel, grabbing the lock would never fail. Is it really impossible to do this? (Please educate me.) The only cost I see is the memory for the locks which the UP kernel needs to allocate, even though it will never use them.[1]
> > In many cases binary modules could easily be built as SMP compatible > > without any real performance hit on the system. If there is a > > performance hit, the developer can build both SMP and UP versions of > > the modules. > > And for large memory, and not. And for i386, i486, i586 and > i686. And so on. Get real.
It is a pain to maintain hundreds of machines which vary in subtle ways. If I could compile a module _once_ and rdist it to all the workstations, it would make life a lot easier.
I don't see why it is so evil to reduce the variables when compiling a module. Combinatorial growth and all that.
Kjetil T.
[1] It looks like the memory _is_ allocated if you compile with GCC < 2.8...
- 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/
| |