[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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
>>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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.100 / U:4.908 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site