lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Very slow clang kernel config ..
On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 10:38:12AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 03:03:31AM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> >
> > People went through great efforts to support shared libraries, sacrificed
> > performance for it even back then when the computing power was much lower
> > than nowadays.
>
> That was because memory was *incredibly* restrictive in those days.
> My first Linux server had one gig of memory, and so shared libraries
> provided a huge performance boost --- because otherwise systems would
> be swapping or paging their brains out.

Correction. My bad, my first Linux machine had 16 megs of memory....

- Ted

>
> However, these days, many if not most developers aren't capable of the
> discpline needed to maintained the ABI stability needed for shared
> libraries to work well. I can think several packages where if you
> used shared libraries, the major version number would need to be
> bumped at every releases, because people don't know how to spell ABI,
> never mind be able to *preserve* ABI. Heck, it's the same reason that
> we don't promise kernel ABI compatibility for kernel modules!
>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/stable-api-nonsense.rst
>
> And in the case of Debian, use of shared libraries means that every
> time you release a new version of, say, f2fs-tools, things can get
> stalled for months or in one case, over a year, due to the new package
> review process (a shared library version bump means a new binary
> package, and that in turn requires a full review of the entire source
> package for GPL compliance from scratch, and f2fs-tools has bumped
> their shared library major version *every* *single* *release*) ---
> during which time, security bug fixes were being held up due to the
> new package review tarpit.
>
> If people could actually guarantee stable ABI's, then shared libraries
> might make sense. E2fsprogs hasn't had a major version bump in shared
> libraries for over a decade (although some developers whine and
> complain about how I reject function signature changes in the
> libext2fs library to provide that ABI stability). But how many
> userspace packages can make that claim?
>
> - Ted

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-05-03 16:55    [W:0.081 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site