lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2

Matt Mackall wrote:

>On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 05:33:58PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>
>>Matt Mackall wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is the fourth release of the -tiny kernel tree. The aim of this
>>>tree is to collect patches that reduce kernel disk and memory
>>>footprint as well as tools for working on small systems. Target users
>>>are things like embedded systems, small or legacy desktop folks, and
>>>handhelds.
>>>
>>>
>>Have you considered Adrian Bunk's CPU selection rationalisation work?
>>
>
>Vaguely aware of it.
>

Basically, because the types of x86 cpus are only partially ordered,
and a the CPU selection somehow tries to follow the rule "this CPU or
higher", there ends up being a bit of stuff included which doesn't
need to be. Not sure what the savings add up to though...

>
>>The last argument I heard against it was that there is lower hanging
>>fruit for size reduction. You seem to have got a lot of that.
>>
>
>Yes, a fair amount. Btw, what's the size differential for piggin-sched
>vs mainline?
>

Very little, I think my sched.o is about 40 bytes bigger on UP. Its about
4K bigger for SMP, but thats with quite a bit of init stuff to set up the
sched domains. It also does HT scheduling, and some more of that could be
ifdefed I guess (its already 1-2K smaller than Ingo's shared runqueues).

If you're talking about my interactivity stuff, then that is very little
difference as well, maybe a few tens of bytes smaller. The scheduler is
pretty lean.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site