netdev - 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: <CAM_iQpUgj7BqpzRL070DEGQ32SWwN68BRgM5DtFqvBLjGGOLQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 6 May 2014 11:33:11 -0700
From:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	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 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.
--
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