Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:28:21 +0100 | From | Witukind <> | Subject | Re: udev sysfs docs Re: State of devfs in 2.6? |
| |
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:47:01 -0500 Ed Sweetman <ed.sweetman@wmich.edu> wrote: > Witukind wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:33:24 +0100 > > mru@kth.se (Måns Rullgård) wrote: > > > > > >>Witukind <witukind@nsbm.kicks-ass.org> writes: > >> > >> > >>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:39:32 +0100 mru@kth.se (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.
-- Jabber: heimdal@jabber.org - 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/
| |