Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 9 Nov 2001 14:12:15 +1100 | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: speed difference between using hard-linked and modular drives? |
| |
On 09 Nov 2001 00:00:19 +0100 Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes: > > > > we should fix this by trying to allocate continuous physical memory if > > possible, and fall back to vmalloc() only if this allocation fails. > > Check -aa. A patch to do that has been in there for some time now. > > -Andi > > P.S.: It makes a measurable difference with some Oracle benchmarks with > the Qlogic driver.
Modules have lots of little disadvantages that add up. The speed penalty on various platforms is one, the load/unload race complexity is another.
There's a widespread "modules are free!" mentality: they're not, and we can add complexity trying to make them "free", but it might be wiser to realize that dynamic adding and deleting from a running kernel is a problem on par with a pagagble kernel, and may not be the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Rusty. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |