linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/24] net, diet: Make TCP metrics optional

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+mtBx81EdtZeXRG_ubgWMy+8rSOpK3q0S3YktBDDFt-LG2poA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 6 May 2014 11:58:38 -0700
From:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, josh@...htriplett.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/24] net, diet: Make TCP metrics optional

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> We simply can not compete with user space, as a programmer is free to
>> keep what he really wants/needs.
>
> Not true.
>
> With my patches and LTO Linux can be competive with LWIP+socket layer.
> (about 60K more text). And it's easier to use because it's just
> the standard interface.
>
>> I have started using linux on 386/486 pcs which had more than 2MB of
>> memory, it makes me sad we want linux-3.16 to run on this kind of
>> hardware, and consuming time to save few KB here and here.
>
> Linux has always been a system from very small to big.
> That's been one of its strengths. It is very adaptable.
>
> Many subsystems are very configurable for this.
> For example that is why we have both SLOB and SLUB.
> That is why we have NOMMU MM and lots of other tuning
> knobs for small systems.
>
> So if the other subsystems can do this, why should it be
> impossible for networking?
>
Can this at least be done without the combinatorial explosion in
number of configurations? As Yuchung pointed out these patches
introduce at least one unresolved configuration dependency. CONFIG_SMP
works quite well since with a single parameter we can enable/disable a
whole bunch of functionality in bulk, and it's quite clear that new
development cannot break smp or non-smp configurations. Maybe you want
something similar like CONFIG_NETWORK_SMALL?

Tom

> -Andi
>
> --
> ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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/