Re: udev sysfs docs Re: State of devfs in 2.6?

[Witukind]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:47:01 -0500
Ed Sweetman <ed.sweetman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Witukind wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:33:24 +0100
> > mru@xxxxxx (Måns Rullgård) wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Witukind <witukind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:39:32 +0100 mru@xxxxxx (Måns Rullgård)
> >wrote:>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Is there a specific case for which people want this feature?
> >>>>>Offhand it seems like a slightly odd thing to ask for...
> >>>>
> >>>>I believe the original motivation for module autoloading was to
> >>>
> >>>save> memory by unloading modules when their devices were unused. 
> >>>Loading> them automatically on demand made for less trouble for
> >>>users, who> didn't have to run modprobe manually to use the sound
> >>>card, or> whatever.  This could still be a good thing in embedded
> >>>systems.> 
> >>>
> the biggest advantage from modules is the ability to enable/disable 
> devices with different initialization configurations without
> rebooting, including the use of devices that aren't present during
> boot or may be added to a system that cant be put down to reboot.
> Embedded systems usually do not change, that's just part of being
> embedded, modules dont really make sense there unless things like
> filesystems and non-device modules never get used at the same time and
> memory is limited such that 100KB actually matters.
> 
> 
> >>>I don't see why it wouldn't be a good thing for regular systems
> >>>also. Saving memory is usually a good idea.
> 
> True, but how about we start being good memory users where it counts
> the most, like gui's/userspace land and then worry about the sub 1MB
> usage that kernels exist in.
> 
> >>The biggest modules are about 100k.  Saving 100k of 1 GB doesn't
> >>really seem worth any effort.
> > 
> > 
> > I don't have 1 Gb of memory. On my laptop with 16 mb RAM saving 100k
> > is worth the effort.
> 
> Then why do you use a sylpheed, which is gtk instead of something in a
> 
> terminal that uses much less memory (doesn't require xfree86, which 
> you're probably also using instead of tinyX) and toolkits, pixmaps
> etc. 
>    Obviously, 100k is not worth _your_ effort.
> 
> 
> I'm not saying module use is more memory efficient than not or vice 
> versa, but if memory usage in the 100K range is going to be the only 
> argument for autoloading/unloading of modules then it's really _not_ 
> worth the effort unless someone can give that kind of support without 
> trying.  Your fight for memory efficiency should start where the 
> inefficiency is the largest, and work it's way down, not the other way
> 
> around.
> 
> 
> 

Well first of all, how do you know I am using the laptop right now? I don't use
X on it actually, not even tinyX (anyway the video card is not supported by
XFree86). Secondly what if I don't like text mode or the available text mode
email clients? The thing is I want to get the most out of my hardware, so every
opportunity to decrease RAM usage, CPU cycles and increase the speed and
responsiveness is good. I do agree with you that there is much bloat in Gtk
(especially 2.x). The thing is also it's not just ONE module.

-- 
Jabber: heimdal@xxxxxxxxxx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/