Re: 2.6.1-rc1-tiny2

[Nick Piggin]

Matt Mackall wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 05:33:58PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > Matt Mackall wrote:
> >
> >
> > > This is the fourth release of the -tiny kernel tree. The aim of this
> > > tree is to collect patches that reduce kernel disk and memory
> > > footprint as well as tools for working on small systems. Target users
> > > are things like embedded systems, small or legacy desktop folks, and
> > > handhelds.
> > Have you considered Adrian Bunk's CPU selection rationalisation work?
>
> Vaguely aware of it.

Basically, because the types of x86 cpus are only partially ordered,
and a the CPU selection somehow tries to follow the rule "this CPU or
higher", there ends up being a bit of stuff included which doesn't
need to be. Not sure what the savings add up to though...

> > The last argument I heard against it was that there is lower hanging
> > fruit for size reduction. You seem to have got a lot of that.
>
> Yes, a fair amount. Btw, what's the size differential for piggin-sched
> vs mainline?

Very little, I think my sched.o is about 40 bytes bigger on UP. Its about
4K bigger for SMP, but thats with quite a bit of init stuff to set up the
sched domains. It also does HT scheduling, and some more of that could be
ifdefed I guess (its already 1-2K smaller than Ingo's shared runqueues).

If you're talking about my interactivity stuff, then that is very little
difference as well, maybe a few tens of bytes smaller. The scheduler is
pretty lean.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/