From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 17:56:27 +0100 From: Ingo Oeser Subject: Re: Reduce Linux memory requirements for an Embedded PC Message-ID: <20010324175627.F26121@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de> References: <20010324133926.A1584@fred.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 01:21:29PM -0300 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Andi Kleen , Petr Dusil , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 01:21:29PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > I'm willing to work on a CONFIG_TINY option for 2.5 which > does things like this (but I'll have to finish some VM > things first ;)). Why not 2.4? It is only a configuration thing, right? People are using Linux more and more for embedded stuff. So waiting 2 years more is not an option. I'm willing to help, if we collect some ideas on WHAT to do first. I had problems even on 64MB with no swap attached, so this is a serious problem (look at comment on OOM killer does not trigger). Esp. in the network layer we need to reduce memory usage, since this triggered it for me on this oversized box. Also a set of configs (may be sysctl stuff) to adjust trade-off decisions on throughput vs. latency or memory vs. speed and the like. Autotuning is nice, but has always the chance to fail for corner cases. Taking these into account to generates too much code bloat. So making the required tunables available (as already happend with threads-max, file-max and the like) is supporting the idea of 'providing features, not policy'. Regards Ingo Oeser -- 10.+11.03.2001 - 3. Chemnitzer LinuxTag <<<<<<<<<<<< been there and had much fun >>>>>>>>>>>> -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/