On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:40:13 -0500 John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 10:25:27 am Mark Felder wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:49:11 -0600, Alexander Kabaev <kab...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > The only extra quirk that said commit > > > does is an optimization of a dlsym() call, which is hardly ever in > > > critical performance path. > > > > It's really not my place to say, but it seems strange that if an > > optimization is available people would ignore it because they don't think > > it's important enough. I don't understand this mentality; if it's not > > going to break anything and it obviously can improve performance in > > certain use cases, why not merge it and make FreeBSD even better? > > Many things that seem obvious aren't actually true, hence the need for > actual testing and benchmarks. > I can't claim to have rigorously benchmarked this, but I am running with a patched ld-elf.so.1 right now and can state that *subjectively* there is absolutely no difference in the perceived performance. firefox, opera and OpenOffice still seem to be dogs the first time they start up. Since this is all about perception I see no benefit in applying the patch, although it doesn't seem to have broken anything either. -- Gary Jennejohn (gj@) _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
