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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 23 Jun 2014 18:17:55 +0800
From:	zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@...il.com>
To:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/24] net, diet: Make TCP metrics optional

On 05/07/2014 02:33 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:55 AM,  <josh@...htriplett.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 01:16:43PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: josh@...htriplett.org
>>> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 09:41:08 -0700
>>>
>>>> Every KB of RAM costs real money and SoC die area (for eDRAM/eSRAM).
>>> Another poster commented that 16MB of DRAM would be cheaper than
>>> the 2MB of ram you have on these boards, probably one that fits
>>> your size profile is available as well.
>>>
>>> 2MB is just a rediculous restriction.
>> Embedded systems experts disagree with you there; there *are* systems
>> where the most cost-efficient approach is a few MB (or a few hundred KB)
>> of non-discrete memory.  We're not talking about socketed memory or even
>> soldered-down memory; we're talking about entire systems that fit on a
>> small SoC die.  The space not used by that extra RAM may well be better
>> spent on CPU optimizations, or some other integrated component.
>>
>> Such boards will be built, and many of them will run Linux, despite your
>> incredulity.  When you're building millions of a board, it's well worth
>> optimizing software to eliminate components from the bill of materials.
> So why bothers 3.15+ Linux kernel? Why not use an old kernel e.g. 2.4.x?
> 2.4.x kernel doesn't have so many new features you want to get rid of here.
Maybe 2.4.x kernel doesn't have so many new features that we want to use 
here.
> --
> 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/