very common kernel modules slow down the boot process

[Dave Jones]

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 09:47:32AM -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote:
 > 
 > On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 09:03 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
 > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 12:25:53PM -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
 > >  > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:04:31AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
 > >  > >  > Do these older/limited machines do anything better now than they did in 
 > >  > >  > the 2.4 kernel days?
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > Good luck trying to get the installer to run on anything less than 512MB these days.
 > >  > 
 > >  > Don't bother: either
 > >  > 
 > >  > - Use an existing disk image and upgrade it (works in 128MB)
 > > 
 > > Part of the selinux-policy-targeted upgrade does something whih
 > > munches through stupid amounts of memory.  On any box I've tried
 > > this on with <512MB, the oom killer kicks in, and then I've been
 > > left with the mess of a half upgraded box, with lots of rpms
 > > listed twice in the rpmdb.
 > 
 > Is this still true?  There were several memory optimizations implemented
 > in libsemanage and libsepol in time for Fedora 9, so semodule and
 > semanage should be much less memory hungry than they were in Fedora 8.

I'm pretty sure I've still seen this happen on rawhide recently.
I now f8 is definitly still affected, because it blew up last week
even after some of Dan's recent changes that we hoped would lower
mem usage. 

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk