Re: [gentoo-user] Module philosophy: Compile-in or Load

["Mike Huber" <michael.huber@gmail.com>]

oh, there is one thing where it is useful to have modules.  That would
be projects where the codebase will be updated more often than you
update your kernels (I'm looking at you ALSA).  In those circumstances
it may be more valuable to have the flexibility to update code without
having to reboot (or kexec).

On 6/12/06, Mike Huber <michael.huber@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, all mileage may vary.
>
> Personally, I prefer to not have things loaded into the kernel when
> I'm not using them.  It's not really a performance or a memory saving
> thing, but more of an OCD thing.  I'm sure that, in the grand scheme
> of things, the little time/power/whatever I save by keeping them out
> of the kernel is far outweighed by the amount of time it takes to type
> "modprobe x" when i remember I need to load the thing.  Afterall, my
> time at the command prompt is significantly more valuable than a few
> extra cycles, or an extra 70-500K memory footprint.
>
> The thing is, it really depends on how clean you keep your kernel
> config.  If you seriously go through the kernel config an make sure
> that you only select the things which are appropriate for your system,
> then you're fine.  I've known people who just have almost everything
> built as a module, and let kernel autoloading take care of figuring
> out which one they need for their system (yes, terribly stupid and
> inelegant, but it does solve the problem when you don't know how else
> to do it).  Also, compiling a whole tree of modules can be a simple
> way of figuring out exactly which set of code corresponds to your
> chipset, but that is not relevant to the current discussion.
>
> Basically, I'd say that if it doesn't matter how the thing is loaded
> into the kernel (I.E., no outside code relies on it being a module),
> and if it's going to be loaded more than some threshold percentage of
> time, just build it in.  Unless you are facing some weird constraints,
> anything resembling modern hardware can handle the slightly larger
> kernel, and if you are facing those constraints, you probably already
> know what you're doing much better than I'll ever be able to say.
>
> As a side question for the list, when you load a module, you can pass
> module options to it (at least, last I checked, this could be done to
> specify things like the name of the interface on an internet driver,
> debugging level, etc...).  When you build something into the kernel,
> is there an easy way to pass such options off to it?  boot time
> options? anyone know?
>
> --Mike
>
> On 6/12/06, Steven Susbauer <stupendoussteve@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Anthony E. Caudel wrote:
> >
> > > I was wondering what gentoo-users think and practice about kernel
> > > modules.  Do most compile them in the kernel or load them at boot-up.
> > >
> > > Note that I'm _NOT_ talking about those modules that have to be compiled
> > > in such as for your filesystem. This is about the other ones.
> > >
> > > I generally like to load them at boot-up.  One reason is that I have
> > > heard that for suspend or hibernate to work, some modules have to be
> > > unloaded.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, compiling them in results in faster boot times.
> > >
> > > So, what do gentoo-users think?
> > >
> > > Tony
> > >
> >
> >
> > I have never used any modules that I didn't have to. At this point, I use
> > none. They are all compiled into the kernel, because I don't have a point
> > to unloading or loading. The only point for modules in any of my
> > experience is if you're often changing hardware (possibly a laptop with a
> > base station... or something?)
> > --
> > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
> >
> >
>
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list