Kay Sievers wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 22:28, Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Kay Sievers wrote: >> > > >>> Do you have numbers for the difference of threaded vs. non-threaded, for: >>> time (udevadm trigger; udevadm settle) >>> when no rules are active? >>> > > >> Interesting question. I stop HAL first, it tends to slow my tests down and >> doesn't represent normal bootup. >> > > Yeah, it's the RUN+="socket: ..." handling, which can block the event > process, if something listens, but does not read fast enough. With the > new netlink events from udev to listeners (no RUN+="socket: ..." > needed), the sending is de-coupled from the listeners state and will > not slow-down udev. Hopefully HAL will go away soon, we are pretty > close already. > >From my POV it's more that if I don't kill HAL, I think it appears higher than udev in the profile. So udev will have to compete for CPU time, and I can't simply measure the elapsed time. >> Test machine is eeepc 701; trigger -n shows 382 devices. >> >> no threading: ~0.5s >> threading: ~0.25s >> > > Oh, nice numbers. In a real setup, can we expect more than 0.25s to > win with a threaded udevd? I don't know yet. I need to re-implement the madvise hack so it doesn't segfault on a booting system. I'm pretty sure I know what I did wrong. But right now I'm working on submitting everything that's ready. > What can we expect from the udev-exec > thing? Will it be a bit slower, because it has a bit more work to do? > I ditched the udev-exec daemon on Scotts suggestion. Regards Alan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
