nomodule config ?

maxarsys · 2013-09-07 07:56:34

Hi !

I am trying to compil and optimize my kernel for performance, but i ve tryied few time to load it without succes when I implement modules to the kernel using the option =y and not =m for some modules found after make localmodconfig.

My question is, is it going to make a faster and smaller kernel to implement this modules to the kernel ? Is there is some modules than cannot be activated as directly implemented ? It seems to be automatic for the ones that cannot be implemented i simply cannot choose =y but only =m under make xconfig(like the i915 driver) but tell me if I am wrong.

I will certainly have modules left, but I want to implement the most i can to my kernel, is it a good idea ?

Since implementing most of modules in the kernel dont works, should I use nomodset ? I havent tryied this otpion yet and I deleted my kernel that is not working unforutnately.

The compiled kernel cannot find my UUID on boot.

Before I redo the .config I want to know what is forbidden to implemente straight to the kernel. And if nomodset in my boot option will be a radical solution.

Last edited by maxarsys (2013-09-07 08:04:34)

kaszak696 · 2013-09-07 08:32:49

I don't see the point of this, if you want some functionality provided by modules from the very start, you can just include these modules in the MODULES array in mkinitcpio.conf and rebuild initramfs. Compiling modules in doesn't have any benefit, it just makes the kernel image larger and makes it impossible to unload these modules, in case you ever need to. If you want to skip initramfs, you don't really need much in kernel, just a block device driver and filesystem driver for /. Maintaining your own .config in this case is going to be more trouble than it's worth.

nomodeset has nothing to do with modules, it just turns off KMS, it's needed for closed-source graphics drivers.

Last edited by kaszak696 (2013-09-07 08:43:04)

maxarsys · 2013-09-07 09:44:49

Well I want to have a very purist performance configuration. i will not unload those modules, because I need everything on my laptop,and I dont want to make hardware changes yet. I m only worry about one driver that i compiled manually called mtrack for the touchpad, that is started by xorg, but I dont know if It will stay.

If I really need to upgrade i can always load to my defaut kernel, with module support and make the change with the .config from the monolithic kernel.

So If I understand you it is possibile to load everything in the kernel to gain performance.?

I remember a while ago ( I came recently back using linux and it seems far in my memory) I had built most of loaded modules in my kernel 2.6 kernel and it was very fast and the kernel was very "carefull" with the hardware, the fan where working better, the cpu was heating less, the ram was faster.

I wonder why my kernel is not booting since you told me that, should I necessary unload conflicting driver in my config file ?

How abotu adding a third part module inside the kernel, like the driver for X and my touchpad that are called mtrack og i go for monolithic, unless i can build in the kernel the important stuff related to cpu support, SATA support, OHCI, AHCI support etc.., and keep a loadable module kernel configuration ?

To summarise, my main question is, since i just change =m to =y in most cases after having run make localmodconfig, why is my kernel not loading ?

add =y make it conflicted with some =y entries already present in the .config ? Are they next to each other in the kernel config menu ? If yes i dont know what to unload unfortunately.

tomk · 2013-09-07 10:45:06

Could you please define what you mean by the word "performance" in this context, and how you intend to measure any supposed performance improvements?

Trilby · 2013-09-07 11:54:34

maxarsys wrote:

why is my kernel not loading?

What makes you think it isn't? In your first post you said the issue was with finding the partition UUIDs, but what was trying to do this? The loaded kernel, right?

I've actually had some similar confusion when I once tinkered with compiling my own kernel - not for any benefits, but just to learn and experiment. I never got it to boot without an initramfs, and I decided I'd put that learning experience off for a while - like till when I had a machine that could recompile a kernel in less that 6 hours! So I'm interested in hearing where this goes - but I don't think it will go far unless you describe what is actually going wrong.

I suspect those who can help will need to know what boot loader you are using, what the relevant entry in the bootloader config looks like, and what errors or symptoms you are seeing when you try to boot.

(edit: typo)

Last edited by Trilby (2013-09-07 14:39:55)

maxarsys · 2013-09-07 14:19:47

I ve noticed that the load is lower when you compil your own kernel even with module, and ram is refresh in a better way with htop witness, i ve tried adding some module straight to the kernel but i was having a bigger load for the same task compare to the moduled version.

Anyway, my fan are also working much better and the heat is much lower with a compiled version (average cpu temp on idle is 53 C) compare to a precompiled version(65degree). I am getting almost no cpu throttling on hard tasks.

I am using refind with et2fs drivers installed for my ext2fs linux boot partition installed on EFI as boot loader.
I ve tryed adding less modules builds inside the kernel and no more problem to boot.

My computer specs are here : http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/m … specs.html

Last edited by maxarsys (2013-09-07 14:20:44)

Arch Linux

#1 2013-09-07 07:56:34

nomodule config ?

#2 2013-09-07 08:32:49

Re: nomodule config ?

#3 2013-09-07 09:44:49

Re: nomodule config ?

#4 2013-09-07 10:45:06

Re: nomodule config ?

#5 2013-09-07 11:54:34

Re: nomodule config ?

#6 2013-09-07 14:19:47

Re: nomodule config ?

Board footer