sizeof - kernel modules

Josh Boyer jwboyer at fedoraproject.org
Mon Jun 15 18:32:26 UTC 2015


On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 1:45 PM, drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 7:38 PM, poma <pomidorabelisima at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> # du -hs /lib/modules/4.0.5-300.fc22.i686/ | awk '{print $1}'
>> 42M
>>
>> kernel-modules-4.0.5-300.fc22.i686.rpm  ...  17M
>>
>> http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/updates/testing/22/i386/k/
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~
>>
>> # du -hs /lib/modules/4.1.0-0.rc7.git0.1.fc23.x86_64/ | awk '{print $1}'
>> 53M
>>
>> kernel-modules-4.1.0-0.rc7.git0.1.fc23.x86_64.rpm  ...  18M
>>
>> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/kernel/4.1.0/0.rc7.git0.1.fc23/x86_64/
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~
>>
>> # du -hs /lib/modules/4.1.0-0.rc7.git1.1.fc23.x86_64/ | awk '{print $1}'
>> 439M
>>
>> kernel-modules-4.1.0-0.rc7.git1.1.fc23.x86_64.rpm  ...  218M
>>
>> http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/x86_64/os/Packages/k/
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~
>>
>> # du -hs /lib/modules/4.1.0-0.rc8.git0.1.fc23.x86_64/ | awk '{print $1}'
>> 438M
>>
>> kernel-modules-4.1.0-0.rc8.git0.1.fc23.x86_64.rpm  ...  218M
>>
>> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/9420/10059420/
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~
>>
>>
>> 218 ÷ 18 = 12.111111111
>> 439 ÷ 53 = 8.283018868
>>
>>>= 4.1.0-0.rc7.git1.1 cca. 10 x sizeof
>
> Those are debug builds.

They aren't actually.

It looks like something in the buildroot stopped stripping the kernel
modules between rc7.git0 and rc7.git1.  Both elf-utils and binutils
changed, so maybe something in there.  The same SRPM build on F22 has
the smaller size.

I haven't looked into it more than that.  If someone wants to poke at
this and figure out what broke, that would be excellent.  From a
kernel package perspective, there isn't anything that we did that
should cause this change in behavior that I'm aware of.

josh


More information about the kernel mailing list