From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2045 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl for ARM Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:45:08 -0400 Message-ID: <20121002174508.GW254@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20121002134843.GV254@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1349200441 21183 80.91.229.3 (2 Oct 2012 17:54:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 17:54:01 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2046-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Oct 02 19:54:04 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TJ6fM-00011K-AE for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 19:53:56 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 28642 invoked by uid 550); 2 Oct 2012 17:53:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 28631 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2012 17:53:49 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2045 Archived-At: On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 12:18:59AM +0800, Brian Wang wrote: > > One area you can get vastly better performance with musl is > > application startup overhead. Especially with static linking, but even > > with dynamic linking if your only .so is libc, the startup time is > > 2-5x faster than glibc, which really makes a difference to the runtime > > of shell scripts (like configure) that invoke tons of external > > programs. > > ok. that makes sense. the faster application startup time is one of the > performance figure that i'm looking for. For individual applications, the difference is not going to be perceptible unless you're comparing static-linked musl to dynamic-linked glibc, on apps that use a ton of libraries. In that case, static-linked glibc would also be fairly fast at startup, but setting up glibc for static linking is rather difficult. The place you'll see a real noticable difference is when starting thousands of tiny, short-lived programs -- this happens mostly in configure scripts and bloated init-scripts. If boot time is an issue, musl (especially with static linking) could help a lot. Combining that with a more streamlined initscript setup could make even more of a difference. > i built the musl toolchain with the musl cross project found on the musl > community wiki. i did replace the 3.x kernel with my oldish 2.6.24. any > pointers on how to sanitize kernel headers? i have not built toolchains > myself since the days when prebuilt toolchains were readily available... I would be careful with older kernels. There have been important fixes as late as 2.6.27 or 2.6.31 (I forget exactly...somewhere around there) and you should at least be aware of the issues and backport security fixes if using older kernels. Rich