Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 8 Aug 2009 10:11:24 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Driver Core: devtmpfs - kernel-maintained tmpfs-based /dev |
| |
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 12:14:39PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 12:17:31AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > > > For devtmpfs to be a realistic replacement for static /dev, it has to > > > be comparable to static /dev in both speed and size. > > > > Since when is this requirement necessary? You want something for free > > in both speed and size? Well, you got it in speed, but not size, it > > will take up memory that is swapable, and a tiny ammount of non-swapable > > kernel memory for the code. > > Not so tiny when you count in the hotplug dependency.
devtmpfs does not rely on hotplug at all.
> > > WRT speed, there should be no slowdown and it should be just as fast > > > as a "tar -xp < dev.tar". > > > > Again, where is this requirement coming from? > > > > Have you timed devtmpfs? > > Not yet, I am still waiting for the latest patch against .30.
I already pointed you at it.
> > > WRT size, it should not be dependent on hotplug, and instead offer > > > hotplug as an option. > > > > Um, again, who made up such a requirement? Are you running systems > > today with CONFIG_HOTPLUG disabled? If so, how well is that working for > > you? > > It's working out quite well. I don't like hotplug, it's too slow. I always > turn it and module-autoloading off, to achieve a much more responsive system.
What becomes "more responsive"? What is too slow?
Anyway, this is quite off-topic for the original patch. If you have problems/issues with udev and CONFIG_HOTPLUG, let's take that to the linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org list.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |