Is pre-linking worth it?
Is pre-linking worth it?
Posted Jul 16, 2009 3:35 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: Is pre-linking worth it? by tbird20d
Parent article: Is pre-linking worth it?
have called a very large number of symbols per text page for this to be
true. (Possibly it was a very small test binary, /bin/cat or something
like that: the essentially random ordering of symbols in glibc would have
required many of its pages to be faulted in for relocation processing,
leading to an artificially high figure.)
Posted Jul 16, 2009 4:35 UTC (Thu)
by arjan (subscriber, #36785)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jul 16, 2009 4:39 UTC (Thu)
by arjan (subscriber, #36785)
[Link]
Posted Jul 23, 2009 16:57 UTC (Thu)
by jgg (subscriber, #55211)
[Link]
20% doesn't seem that surprising to me, glibc for instance has 50k you have to load just to do symbol resolution. You'd only need to fault in 250k of text from glibc to get to 20% overhead. Even my desktop has only faulted in 224kb of glibc.
Posted Jul 16, 2009 11:22 UTC (Thu)
by mjthayer (guest, #39183)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jul 16, 2009 17:51 UTC (Thu)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
In any case, most library opens during system startup will be driven by
Is pre-linking worth it?
Is pre-linking worth it?
Is pre-linking worth it?
Is pre-linking worth it?
Is pre-linking worth it?
opened: the relocation process cannot trigger additional library opens
that weren't already going to happen.
DT_NEEDED, in which case the whole dependency tree of them gets mmap()ed
immediately.