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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:33:26 +0200 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, 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 2014-05-06 11:33:11, 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. So.. what is kernel composed of? Ton of drivers and a bit of generic code. And when doing this, you probably need the drivers from 3.x for your hardware. -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists