[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: udev sysfs docs Re: State of devfs in 2.6?
Ed Sweetman wrote:
> Witukind wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:33:24 +0100
>> (Måns Rullgård) wrote:
>>> Witukind <> writes:
>>>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:39:32 +0100 (Måns Rullgård) wrote:
>>>>>> Is there a specific case for which people want this feature?
>>>>>> Offhand it seems like a slightly odd thing to ask for...
>>>>> I believe the original motivation for module autoloading was to
>>>> save> memory by unloading modules when their devices were unused.
>>>> Loading> them automatically on demand made for less trouble for
>>>> users, who> didn't have to run modprobe manually to use the sound
>>>> card, or> whatever. This could still be a good thing in embedded
>>>> systems.>
> the biggest advantage from modules is the ability to enable/disable
> devices with different initialization configurations without rebooting,
> including the use of devices that aren't present during boot or may be
> added to a system that cant be put down to reboot. Embedded systems
> usually do not change, that's just part of being embedded, modules dont
> really make sense there unless things like filesystems and non-device
> modules never get used at the same time and memory is limited such that
> 100KB actually matters.
>>>> I don't see why it wouldn't be a good thing for regular systems
>>>> also. Saving memory is usually a good idea.
> True, but how about we start being good memory users where it counts the
> most, like gui's/userspace land and then worry about the sub 1MB usage
> that kernels exist in.
>>> The biggest modules are about 100k. Saving 100k of 1 GB doesn't
>>> really seem worth any effort.
>> I don't have 1 Gb of memory. On my laptop with 16 mb RAM saving 100k
>> is worth
>> the effort.

Blah, scratch this.
> Then why do you use a sylpheed, which is gtk instead of something in a
> terminal that uses much less memory (doesn't require xfree86, which
> you're probably also using instead of tinyX) and toolkits, pixmaps etc.
> Obviously, 100k is not worth _your_ effort.

And of course that's all assuming you're using your laptop to write and
send email. Which you probably wouldn't be doing on a 16MB
laptop...probably wouldn't be doing anything on a 16MB laptop. But
anyway, the rest of what i was talking about is ok.

> I'm not saying module use is more memory efficient than not or vice
> versa, but if memory usage in the 100K range is going to be the only
> argument for autoloading/unloading of modules then it's really _not_
> worth the effort unless someone can give that kind of support without
> trying. Your fight for memory efficiency should start where the
> inefficiency is the largest, and work it's way down, not the other way
> around.

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:0.132 / U:1.848 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site