Why load modules on start up?

MighMoS · Guru Joined: 24 Apr 2003 Posts: 416 Location: @ ~

I'm just curious, but why do people build everything as a module, then add them modules.autoload if they're just gonna get loaded all the time. Or things with alsa, then have the alsa init script load them...Why not just build it into the kernel if its always gonna be there?
_________________
jabber: MighMoS@jabber.org

localhost # export HOME=`which heart`

ed0n · Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:29 pm Post subject:

becouse they can unload them when they don't need them.

Cossins · Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:39 pm Post subject:

It is also said that this yields better performance, because the kernel can do better memory administration. Not sure, however.

- Simon
_________________
who cares

gurke · Apprentice Joined: 10 Jul 2003 Posts: 260

i personally build all my non changing hardware and kernel features into kernel, since i always need them and it makes startup cleaner. dont think it makes too much differences though. (except maybe for people using hotplug would save the time for hp to determ needed modules)

castorilo · Apprentice Joined: 25 Dec 2002 Posts: 157

These are the reasons I try to make everything a module even if I will have it loaded all the time:

* I have to mantain several different computers. Making everything a module allows me to use the same kernel in different computers. On each one I only load what is needed.

* If I upgrade something in my computer, say the sound card, then I don't have to recompile the kernel, just load a different module.

* Hotplug can identify and load the correct module for my harware (some things at least). If I compile stuff inside the kernel, then I have to spend time figuring out about my hardware before compiling the kernel, or have a bloated kernel.

* I can unload the module in case something fails and needs to be reinitialized.

* It is easier to try a module with different parameters, just unload and load it again. If it is inside the kernel, I have to reboot.

F16PilotJumper · Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:58 pm Post subject:

Personally, I go with a monolithic kernel, because I know what hardware is in my system and what stuff I need compiled in.

Also, it makes it easier to manage the few things that are dynamically loaded at modules, knowing that the stuff I have to have it just there.

ALSA loads a TON of modules, for instance, on my 2.4.22 kernel, and I can't wait to be able to compile it in when I switch to 2.6.x.

nerdbert · l33t Joined: 09 Feb 2003 Posts: 981 Location: Berlin

it's also useful whenever you want to pass arguments to the driver (I know it's called kernel module, but this term might lead to confusion in this case).

There used to be a problem with bttv not using enough buffers by default, so I compiled it as a module and put

daenan · n00b Joined: 17 Mar 2004 Posts: 8 Location: Indiana, USA

In my case, I had to compile enhanced real time clock (RTC) and AGP (/dev/agpgart) support as modules because fglrx (ATI video driver) wouldn't work if they were complied into the kernel.
_________________
"It is not for us to question why,
it is but for us to do or die..."