[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?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:47:01 -0500
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.
> 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.
> 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.

Well first of all, how do you know I am using the laptop right now? I don't use
X on it actually, not even tinyX (anyway the video card is not supported by
XFree86). Secondly what if I don't like text mode or the available text mode
email clients? The thing is I want to get the most out of my hardware, so every
opportunity to decrease RAM usage, CPU cycles and increase the speed and
responsiveness is good. I do agree with you that there is much bloat in Gtk
(especially 2.x). The thing is also it's not just ONE module.

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:0.082 / U:26.812 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site