[lkml]   [1996]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RFC: New kernel proc interface
Rob Riggs wrote:
> The current proc code was the best solution when RAM was limited.
> Today's systems have much more RAM than in the past. Hacks like
> this should be elimnated now that the majority of systems have
> the resources to do "the right thing." (TM)
> If this is really an issue, implimenting backwards compatibilty
> for memory critical proc routines is trivial.
Actually, I'd be much more interested in backwards compatibility by
'make config', but that would defeat the purpose of your efforts.
Although, the 4-meg box I'm considering pulling down 1.2.latest for
doesn't actually need /proc for much...

Minimally-configured Linux used to run just fine in 4 megs, and could
handle an emacs without too much pain; nowadays a 4 meg linux box takes
about as long to log in as a slowlaris box with YP and NFS automounted
mail and home...assuming both aren't running X.

On my 24 meg machine, though, I don't mind that anywhere near as much as
6 megs of compressed kernel source (when I have or suspect a badly
failed patch) or 12 megs of device driver source... The wonder of linux
is that it supports almost everything, but that doesn't mean everyone
needs all those drivers, or needs to gcc them into essentially-empty .o

Keith (wanting to see if 1.0.9 can run ip_masq...)

"It moved faster. I swear, they are evolving right before my eyes. If
you see something this big, with eight legs coming your way, let me
know; I have to kill it before it develops language skills."
--- Ambassador Londo Mollari, in 'Sic Transit Vir' (Babylon 5)

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.087 / U:0.656 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site