Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:08:03 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |