Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:52:04 -0800 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/8] core-small: Introduce CONFIG_CORE_SMALL from -tiny |
| |
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 12:40:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> wrote: > > > > This set of patches introduces a new config option CONFIG_CORE_SMALL > > from the -tiny tree for small systems. This series should apply > > cleanly against 2.6.11-rc1-mm2. > > > > When selected, it enables various tweaks to miscellaneous core data > > structures to shrink their size on small systems. While each tweak is > > fairly small, in aggregate they can save a substantial amount of > > memory. > > You know what I'm going to ask ;) How much memory?
This stuff is mostly pretty small, a few K per patch. I think these 8 are about 40k total but my notes are several months old.
> I wish it didn't have "core" in the name. A little misleading.
Well I've got another set called NET_SMALL. BASE?
> Did you think of making CONFIG_CORE_SMALL an integer which has values zero > or one? > > Then you can lose all those ifdefs: > > #define MAX_PROBE_HASH (255 - CONFIG_CORE_SMALL * 254) /* dorky */
Ew.
> #define PID_MAX_DEFAULT (CONFIG_CORE_SMALL ? 0x1000 : 0x8000) > #define UIDHASH_BITS (CONFIG_CORE_SMALL ? 3 : 8) > #define FUTEX_HASHBITS (CONFIG_CORE_SMALL ? 4 : 8) > etc.
Hmm. I think we'd want a hidden config variable for this and I'm not sure how well the config language allows setting an int from a bool. And then it would need another name. On the whole, seems more complex than what I've done.
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - 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/
| |