From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 812A9910 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:11:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from qmta11.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta11.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.27.211]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0CA20320 for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 16:11:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:03:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter To: "Bird, Tim" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] RFC: Kernel tinification - kernel config reduction List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, Bird, Tim wrote: > I propose that we remove or hide a lot of the configuration options related > to size, and instead focus on size profiles. When someone wants to build a > minimal Linux system, they don't really want to manually trim down every > Linux sub-system. The more common development case is that they want Yes exactly. > a fully minimal Linux system, except for one or two areas where they want > some flexibility in features. I propose that we tie most of the options that > are currently in the kernel for size reasons to a single or a few meta-options: > e.g. CONFIG_SMALL, CONFIG_TINY, CONFIG_RIDICULOUS. These > different meta-config options can get better testing, and this will help curb > the proliferation of size-related config options (and the resulting test > combination explosion for those individual options.) I'd be interested to configure minimally sized systems in order to increase performance. The cache footprint determines performance these days so a tinyfication project will have performance implications as well and has the potential to significantly speed up key kernel functionality. > Optimally it would be nice to have the ability to configure a small system, and > then "back off" of the tiny config in a particular area (say networking). > I believe this would yield a much more tractable system for building small > systems with Linux, than the current situation. That could be useful also to come up with high performant kernels for special functionality. Come up with a tiny config and then add config options to enable only what is needed. Reminds me of what Gentoo is doing > I'd like to discuss implementation ideas for this in the hallway track at KS. > > Thoughts? Get a room instead of the hallway?