On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 07:54:17PM +0100, Gordan Bobic wrote:
On 09/06/2011 06:53 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 07:22:37PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:15:45 +0200, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>> Personally, I would consider prelink a 'ok, we have everything working
>>> now, and we want to look at making it faster' instead of enabling it
>>> before everything is working or building.
>>
>> I agree That makes sense (although I do not think the prelink issues will be
>> ARM specific and they are already resolved on other arches; I may be wrong).
>
> There could be ARM specific bugs. [...] having the prelink
> package available on ARM would at least help us all test and make
> sure prelink works as intended. So please do include the package,
> if only so people can do some measurements to check whether the
> startup speedup is "just" 10% or even up to 50% on their machines.
I agree on the dependency and testing part, but I think 10% is
optimistic.
I will soon have a few different ARM machines that I can do testing
on. Please let us know[1] your test suite if you want me to try to
substantiate your pessimism.
Here is the best reason I've heard for prelink on today's standard,
memory-constrained ARM device:
http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2011-May/032011.html
Please keep at least the option to enable prelinking in Fedora,
especially before anyone has any performance numbers.
Gordan
Martin
1. A wiki page about prelink on ARM would probably be even better than
a mailing list post. I will start one if nobody beats me to it.