Re: [uClinux-dev] Kernel 2.6 size increase - get_current()?

Re: [uClinux-dev] Kernel 2.6 size increase - get_current()?

[Ihar "Philips" Filipau]

Hollis Blanchard wrote:

> I believe the point Alan was trying to make is not that we should have 
> more or less inlines, but we should have smarter inlines. I.E. don't 
> just inline a function to "make it fast"; think about the implications 
> (and ideally measure it, though I think that becomes problematic when so 
> many other factors can affect the benefit of a single inlined function). 
> The specific example he gave was inlining code on the fast path, while 
> accepting branch/cache penalties for non-inlined code on the slow path.
> 

   But you cannot make this kind of decisions universal.
   Some kind of compromise should be found between arch-mantainers and 
subsystem-mantainers.

   Or beat GCC developer hard so they finally will produce good
optimizing compiler ;-)

   Or ask all kernel developpers to work one hour per week on GCC 
optimization - I bet GCC will outperform everything else in industry in 
  less that one year ;-)))

   To remind: source of the problem is not inlines, problem is the 
compiler, which cannot read our minds yet and generate code we were 
expected it to generate.

P.S. Offtopic. As I see it Linux & Linus have made the decision of 
optimization. Linux after all is capitalismus creation: who has more 
money do control everything. Server market has more money - they do more 
work on kernel and they systems are not that far from developers' 
workstations - so Linux gets more and more server/workstation oriented. 
This will fit desktop market too - if your computer was made to run 
WinXP AKA exp(bloat) - it will be capable to run any OS. Linus repeating 
'small is beatiful' sounds more and more like crude joke...
As for embedded market - it is already in deep fork and far far away 
from vanilla kernels... Vanilla really not that relevant to real world...

OT: Vanilla not for embedded?! Re: Kernel 2.6 size increase - get_current()?

[Mike Fedyk]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 05:37:39PM +0200, Ihar Philips Filipau wrote:
> P.S. Offtopic. As I see it Linux & Linus have made the decision of 
> optimization. Linux after all is capitalismus creation: who has more 
> money do control everything. Server market has more money - they do more
> work on kernel and they systems are not that far from developers' 
> workstations - so Linux gets more and more server/workstation oriented. 
> This will fit desktop market too - if your computer was made to run 
> WinXP AKA exp(bloat) - it will be capable to run any OS. Linus repeating 
> 'small is beatiful' sounds more and more like crude joke...
> As for embedded market - it is already in deep fork and far far away 
> from vanilla kernels... Vanilla really not that relevant to real world...

Vanilla will be what people put into it.  And I have seen more messages from
embedded people complaining, than actually doing and submitting patches for
merging.

So the embedded trees are a deep fork huh?  Did you or anyone else do
anything to merge during 2.5?!

And now you see why there is a "deep" fork...

Re: OT: Vanilla not for embedded?! Re: Kernel 2.6 size increase - get_current()?

[Andre Hedrick]

Where is the "deep" fork storaged, sounds interesting!
At lets it should buisness friendly.

-a

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Mike Fedyk wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 05:37:39PM +0200, Ihar Philips Filipau wrote:
> > P.S. Offtopic. As I see it Linux & Linus have made the decision of 
> > optimization. Linux after all is capitalismus creation: who has more 
> > money do control everything. Server market has more money - they do more
> > work on kernel and they systems are not that far from developers' 
> > workstations - so Linux gets more and more server/workstation oriented. 
> > This will fit desktop market too - if your computer was made to run 
> > WinXP AKA exp(bloat) - it will be capable to run any OS. Linus repeating 
> > 'small is beatiful' sounds more and more like crude joke...
> > As for embedded market - it is already in deep fork and far far away 
> > from vanilla kernels... Vanilla really not that relevant to real world...
> 
> Vanilla will be what people put into it.  And I have seen more messages from
> embedded people complaining, than actually doing and submitting patches for
> merging.
> 
> So the embedded trees are a deep fork huh?  Did you or anyone else do
> anything to merge during 2.5?!
> 
> And now you see why there is a "deep" fork...
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

Re: OT: Vanilla not for embedded?! Re: Kernel 2.6 size increase - get_current()?

[Ihar "Philips" Filipau]

Mike Fedyk wrote:
> 
> Vanilla will be what people put into it.  And I have seen more messages from
> embedded people complaining, than actually doing and submitting patches for
> merging.
> 
> So the embedded trees are a deep fork huh?  Did you or anyone else do
> anything to merge during 2.5?!
> 
> And now you see why there is a "deep" fork...
> 

   Real-time stuff is a must - something like RTAI.
   Things like Linux Trace Toolkit - soone or later you have to start 
using them to tune performace.
   Patches to remove mandatory (for 2.2/2.0) PCI/IDE support were pretty 
common too.
   Patch to shrink network hashes - norm of life.
   Patch to kill PCI names database.
   And this is only things I was using personally (and I remember about) 
in my short 4 years carrier.

   CONFIG_TINY - http://lwn.net/Articles/14186/ - got something like 
this merged? - so I'm the first guy in the download queue on ftp.kernel.org!

   Kernel heavily tuned for servers and workstations (read - modern PCs).

   At my previous position company was using kernel prepared by Karim 
Yaghmour and right now we using kernels from MontaVista.
   Far from vanillas.

 > embedded people complaining

   Sure complaining.
   For some reasons all "improvements" to kernel had lead to increase of 
kernel size, not decrease. Strange, isn't it?

Re: OT: Vanilla not for embedded?! Re: Kernel 2.6 size increase - get_current()?

[Francois Romieu]

Ihar Philips Filipau <filia@softhome.net> :
[...]
>    Patches to remove mandatory (for 2.2/2.0) PCI/IDE support were pretty 
> common too.
>    Patch to shrink network hashes - norm of life.
>    Patch to kill PCI names database.
>    And this is only things I was using personally (and I remember about) 
> in my short 4 years carrier.

Would you mind publishing the patches ?

>    CONFIG_TINY - http://lwn.net/Articles/14186/ - got something like 
> this merged? - so I'm the first guy in the download queue on ftp.kernel.org!

See CONFIG_EMBEDDED.

[...]
>    For some reasons all "improvements" to kernel had lead to increase of 
> kernel size, not decrease. Strange, isn't it?

No time for sarcasm here.

Regards

--
Ueimor

Re: OT: Vanilla not for embedded?! Re: Kernel 2.6 size increase - get_current()?

[Ihar "Philips" Filipau]

Francois Romieu wrote:
>>   Patches to remove mandatory (for 2.2/2.0) PCI/IDE support were pretty 
>>common too.
>>   Patch to shrink network hashes - norm of life.
>>   Patch to kill PCI names database.
>>   And this is only things I was using personally (and I remember about) 
>>in my short 4 years carrier.
> 
> Would you mind publishing the patches ?
> 

   As I already answered privately - I do have them right now.
   And those patches were not mine.
   Most of them was collected right on lkml or from digests on lwn.net.

   [ I was playing only with network code - and I was concerned with 
performance more, than with image size. And had no luck achiving 
something. ]

> 
>>   CONFIG_TINY - http://lwn.net/Articles/14186/ - got something like 
>>this merged? - so I'm the first guy in the download queue on ftp.kernel.org!
> 
> 
> See CONFIG_EMBEDDED.
> 

   Okay. I have found it.
   But I cannot find how it is used.
   I have grepped thru 2.6.0-test0 - but I can find only entries in 
defconfigs - but no mentions in .h/.c files.
   What I'm missing?

   And yes - this option doesn't work in 'make menuconfig'.

>>   For some reasons all "improvements" to kernel had lead to increase of 
>>kernel size, not decrease. Strange, isn't it?
> 
> No time for sarcasm here.
> 

   Correct me if I'm wrong.
   I was just poking around 'small is beatiful'.


P.S. To my earlier 'far from vanilla' comment (-x '.*' - to skip 
.depend/.config/etc):
$ diff -urN -x '.*' ./linux-2.4.17 \
/opt/hardhat/devkit/lsp/ibm-walnut-ppc_405/linux-2.4.17_mvl21\
| wc -l
     1128089
$
and more than 500 additional CONFIG_* parameters comparing to vanilla.

Re: OT: Vanilla not for embedded?! Re: Kernel 2.6 size increase - get_current()?

[Ihar "Philips" Filipau]

Ihar "Philips" Filipau wrote:
> 
> P.S. To my earlier 'far from vanilla' comment (-x '.*' - to skip 
> .depend/.config/etc):
> $ diff -urN -x '.*' ./linux-2.4.17 \
> /opt/hardhat/devkit/lsp/ibm-walnut-ppc_405/linux-2.4.17_mvl21\
> | wc -l
>     1128089
> $
> and more than 500 additional CONFIG_* parameters comparing to vanilla.
> 

   Oops sorry - some garbage get into.
   Much less than 500 - cannot count precisely.
   513 with garbage - cannot filter out correctly what is present in 
vanilla kernel...

   mvl21 patch againt vanilla _impressive_ by all means.
   'diff -urN' output is more than 30MB.