From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272290AbTGYSKu (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:10:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272324AbTGYSKn (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:10:43 -0400 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:41741 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272310AbTGYSIk (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:08:40 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: gatekeeper.tmr.com!davidsen From: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: [uClinux-dev] Kernel 2.6 size increase Date: 25 Jul 2003 18:16:15 GMT Organization: TMR Associates, Schenectady NY Message-ID: References: <200307232046.46990.bernie@develer.com> <200307240007.15377.bernie@develer.com> <20030723222747.GF643@alpha.home.local> <200307242227.16439.bernie@develer.com> X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1059156975 796 192.168.12.62 (25 Jul 2003 18:16:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com Originator: davidsen@gatekeeper.tmr.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <200307242227.16439.bernie@develer.com>, Bernardo Innocenti wrote: | On Thursday 24 July 2003 00:27, Willy Tarreau wrote: | | > On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 12:07:15AM +0200, Bernardo Innocenti wrote: | > > text data bss dec hex filename | > > 633028 37952 134260 805240 c4978 linux-2.4.x/linux-Os | > > 819276 52460 78896 950632 e8168 linux-2.5.x/vmlinux-inline-Os | > > ^^^^^^ | > > 2.6 still needs a hard diet... :-/ | > | > I did the same observation a few weeks ago on 2.5.74/gcc-2.95.3. I tried | > to track down the responsible, to the point that I completely disabled | > every driver, networking option and file-system, just to see, and got about | > a 550 kB vmlinux compiled with -Os. 550 kB for nothing :-( | | Some of the bigger 2.6 additions cannot be configured out. | I wish sysfs and the different I/O schedulers could be removed. Perhaps after 2.6.n is out and stable for a month or so someone could look at the problem. Certainly the various io schedulers are good candidates for being optional and/or modules. The problem is that the parts which aren't needed aren't large, so you may not gain much. Clearly you have to have *some* io scheduler, I'm not sure if sysfs is optional in any meaningful way any more. I haven't tried running w/i /proc in a few months, it didn't work when I did, but old kernels are old news. -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.