[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f7848160808261808p3391c99ekfa1d8991bbf73c10@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:08:13 -0400
From: "Parag Warudkar" <parag.lkml@...il.com>
To: "Greg Ungerer" <gerg@...pgear.com>
Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...sta.de>,
"Rusty Russell" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle@...com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kernel Testers List" <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug #11342] Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c - bisected
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Greg Ungerer <gerg@...pgear.com> wrote:
> I have some simple devices (network access/routers) with 8MB of RAM,
> at power up not really being configured to do anything running 25
> processes. (Heck there is over 10 kernel processes running!). Configure
> some interfaces and services and that will easily push past 40.
> I'd be happy with a 160k saving :-)
>
So you really need to run all 25 processes on that 8Mb box?
(For reference even the NGW100 development board comes with 16Mb RAM).
Even if you do need those all 25 processes on the 8Mb box, fixing the
memory usage of those user space hogs is lot better than trying to
save 160Kb in kernel stacks.
Last I looked, user space wasn't particularly frugal with memory usage.
Parag
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists