Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262168AbUKKEc6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:32:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262169AbUKKEc5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:32:57 -0500 Received: from [61.48.53.74] ([61.48.53.74]:52220 "EHLO freya.yggdrasil.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262168AbUKKEcy (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:32:54 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:24:10 -0800 From: "Adam J. Richter" Message-Id: <200411112024.iABKOAD04383@freya.yggdrasil.com> To: gene.haskett@verizon.net Subject: Re: DEVFS_FS Cc: alebyte@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-os@chaos.analogic.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2374 Lines: 54 On 2004-11-11 0:06:37, Gene Heskett wrote: >On Wednesday 10 November 2004 16:03, Alexandre Costa wrote: >>On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:46:06 -0500 (EST), linux-os >> >> wrote: >>> What is the approved substitute for DEVFS_FS that is marked >>> obsolete? >> >>udev >>http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/kernel/hotplug/udev.html > >Humm, I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with that choice. I have an >FC3RC5 install on an old P-II running at 233mhz, and the udev start >in the bootup is the slowest single thing to get started by an order >of magnitude. > >Can someone tell me a good reason udev wastes as much time as the post >does checking 383 megs of memory, which is very nearly a minute even >just for udev? > >If its to be used, its got to speed itself up, a LOT!. Gene, I do not know what kind of device you are using or what kind of inialization it really needs, but your situation _might_ be a good example of the benefits of being able configure devices on demand with devfs if this is a device that you do not use every time you boot your system and that initialization process is not something that can easily be deferred to the first device open() call. As you may know, in the recent releases of my devfs rewrite, I split the demand loading for missing device files into a separate a separate facility (tmpfs "lookup traps"). That way, even if you do not want to run the rest of devfs, you could avoid that initilization and perhaps some kernel memory usage from the device driver in the sessions that never use that device. On the other hand, initialization on demand would make your first access of the session to that device spend the same amount of time that you are now spending at boot, whereas, you might instead want to have that device driver loaded at boot time and stay in kernel memory so that you can do the initialization in the background if you can somehow ensure that access to the device will block until the initialization completes if necessary. __ ______________ Adam J. Richter \ / adam@yggdrasil.com | g g d r a s i l - 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/