Alan Cox writes:
> > You see, Richard, there is a tiny problem. Many people will _really_ want
> > to configure DEVFS out of their kernels. Procfs is much more conservative
> > wrt dcache...
>
> Procfs adds 90K to the running footprint of my machine, so I want to run it
> as a loadable module using old style /dev when building embedded boxes.
> The real disk /dev is the right answer for small machines along with
> sysctl without proc.
>
> Devfs looks after the big machine issues better.
Ahem!
% ll fs/proc/proc.o fs/devfs/devfs.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 rgooch computer 39171 Feb 17 16:16 fs/devfs/devfs.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 rgooch computer 47737 Feb 17 16:16 fs/proc/proc.o
Looks to me that devfs is more lightweight. On a typical workstation
(i.e. bigger than an embedded machine), add a few pages of data to
that.
So in fact, devfs is pretty lightweight. I'm not sure why people keep
saying otherwise. I've published numbers a couple of times before.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:18 EST