From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2046 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 13:46:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20121002174611.GX254@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20121002134843.GV254@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20121002163932.GB24157@port70.net> 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 1349200528 21954 80.91.229.3 (2 Oct 2012 17:55:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 17:55:28 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2047-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Oct 02 19:55:33 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 1TJ6gM-0007ym-9b for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 19:54:58 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 30004 invoked by uid 550); 2 Oct 2012 17:54:52 -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 29996 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2012 17:54:52 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121002163932.GB24157@port70.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2046 Archived-At: On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 06:39:32PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Rich Felker [2012-10-02 09:48:43 -0400]: > > 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. > > > > i don't see this mentioned on the libc comparision table > > is this the self-exec benchmark? Yes. That definitely could be better-documented. self-exec is the best/only way I've found to measure the actual startup overhead, as opposed to just aggregate time to run a simple program. > linux/types.h only typedefs fd_set ifdef __KERNEL__ > so userspace code shouldnt see fd_set at all, > only __kernel_fd_set > > i think busybox is doing something wrong there Yes, something is amiss... Rich