From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753298AbaFWKST (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2014 06:18:19 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f169.google.com ([209.85.192.169]:56912 "EHLO mail-pd0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751789AbaFWKSR (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2014 06:18:17 -0400 Message-ID: <53A7FED3.4@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 18:17:55 +0800 From: zhuyj User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cong Wang , Josh Triplett CC: David Miller , Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Network Developers , LKML , tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com, Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/24] net, diet: Make TCP metrics optional References: <20140506155703.GA20391@cloud> <20140506.115941.428706504757835279.davem@davemloft.net> <20140506164108.GA20536@cloud> <20140506.131643.994244006906866938.davem@davemloft.net> <20140506175547.GE20776@cloud> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/07/2014 02:33 AM, Cong Wang wrote: > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:55 AM, wrote: >> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 01:16:43PM -0400, David Miller wrote: >>> From: josh@joshtriplett.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. Maybe 2.4.x kernel doesn't have so many new features that we want to use here. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >