RE: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh

Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 10:06:12PM -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> > How about Gordon's initial bootstone, which increased by 25%?
> > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16091.44150.539095.704531
> > 
> > And I just did a "make clean" run in /usr/ports/archivers (by manually
> > mv'ing a static and dynamic sh to /bin in turn):
> > 
> > static:       96.63 real        53.45 user        39.27 sys
> > dynamic:     112.42 real        55.51 user        51.62 sys
> > 
> > The wall clock is bad (16% worse) and the system time is worse (31%).
> So can we just have a statically linked /bin/sh and get on with life?
> That seems to have the most impact.  We can also expend our efforts
> to improve dynamic linking performance, since that will improve the
> performance of the other 99.9% of the universe.

Yes, let's do it and get on with it.  /bin/sh is critically important
to the performance of many things in the system, but shared / is very
useful as well - it's allowed me to move my 4.x systems with small /
up to 5-current, and / programs can take advantage of NSS and PAM
modules that exist *today*.
 
> ...
> In any case, I'd really like to see a goal for 5.3-RELEASE that
> includes bringing dynamically-linked /bin/sh performance (*much*)
> closer to statically-linked /bin/sh performance.

Yes -- this is -current: let's get 5.2 out the door and improve on it
for 5.3.

Guy Helmer