Alan Cox wrote:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 05:35:33AM +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote:
AFAIK, busybox still forks whereever a regular POSIX shell forks, so if the
amount of forks is the problem, AFAICT busybox will resolve absolutely nothing.
Fork should be pretty cheap - although that depends how much memory is unshared
by each of the resulting tasks. A smaller cleaner shell such as rc (which was
designed for this job in plan 9) or ash might well perform better. I'm dubious
it would be a big difference but someone can bench it.
If a unix-like system can't fork/exec at a rate suitable to handle
starting it's initial processes you should throw the whole system out
and start over, because it will be useless even after you get it
running. I think the real problem you need to solve is the number of
file opens that happen between boot up and the end of the init script
processing. This: http://kernelslacker.livejournal.com/35270.html
and the presentation on the topic at Oscon looked pretty horrible and
won't be fixed by using a dumber shell to parse the scripts. And note
that the suggestion to break out lines of configurations into individual
files for easier programmatic editing just compounds this already
serious problem.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
