Backing Store for sysfs
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 20:20:16 +0200, you wrote in linux.kernel:
Quoted 3 lines
Does that make more sense? We can't just look at what happens with this patch without actually accessing all of the sysfs tree, as that will be the "normal" case.
Well, the normal case for me and other people not using any hot-pluggable devices will be to run a hotplug agent that does absolutely nothing... so in my case, the proposed patch would help - more memory available for the normal work I do.
With a static /dev and no hotpluggable stuff around, there is no need for and hotplug agent being there at all. And I do think such system are not too uncommon, so considering them would probably be nice.
Signature · 2 lines
Ciao, Pascal
Quoted 6 lines · Pascal Schmidt
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 20:20:16 +0200, you wrote in linux.kernel:
Quoted 3 lines
Does that make more sense? We can't just look at what happens with this patch without actually accessing all of the sysfs tree, as that will be the "normal" case.
Quoted 8 lines
Well, the normal case for me and other people not using any hot-pluggable devices will be to run a hotplug agent that does absolutely nothing... so in my case, the proposed patch would help - more memory available for the normal work I do.
With a static /dev and no hotpluggable stuff around, there is no need for and hotplug agent being there at all. And I do think such system are not too uncommon, so considering them would probably be nice.
Systems like this are not uncommon, I agree. But also for systems like this, the current code works just fine (small number of fixed devices.) I haven't heard anyone complain about memory usage for a normal system (99.9% of the systems out there.)
Also, remember that in 2.7 I'm going to make device numbers random so you will have to use something like udev to control your /dev tree. Slowly weaning yourself off of a static /dev during the next 2 years or so might be a good idea :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Quoted 4 lines · Greg KH
Systems like this are not uncommon, I agree. But also for systems like this, the current code works just fine (small number of fixed devices.) I haven't heard anyone complain about memory usage for a normal system (99.9% of the systems out there.)
I'd like my kernel to have as small a footprint as possible. Allocated memory that is almost never used is waste. It may not be much, but "add little to little and you will have a big pile". Whatever, we're not the big pile yet and I'm not concerned enough to cook up patches.
Quoted 4 lines
Also, remember that in 2.7 I'm going to make device numbers random so you will have to use something like udev to control your /dev tree. Slowly weaning yourself off of a static /dev during the next 2 years or so might be a good idea :)
I guess by then we'll have an excellent udev version with no known bugs. ;) However, requiring more and more packages to be installed just to boot a system is also not something I like much.
Signature · 2 lines
Ciao, Pascal