Re: [PATCH] Add possibility to set /dev/tty number

From: Austin S. Hemmelgarn
Date: Wed Jan 06 2016 - 07:43:32 EST


On 2016-01-05 15:47, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
This means that not including the VT subsystem resulted in a 128k
reduction in runtime footprint, and having only half the number of VT's
resulted in a 52k reduction. Assuming a linear correlation between the
number of VT's and the runtime footprint of the subsystem, that means
the subsystem itself incurs 26k of overhead, and each VT incurs
approximately 1.6k of overhead.

Doesn't seem an unreasonable value - so yes you've made an argument for
dynamically allocating the vt structures when they are first referenced.
No, I've made an argument for finding some way to reduce the runtime impact of the VT subsystem. Dynamic allocation is one way to do that, but not the only way.

In fact, there already appears to be some degree of allocation on demand for VT's (otherwise deallocvt has no point), just not for everything associated with the VT. I'd be willing to bet that almost everything that reasonably can be dynamically allocated already is, there is a bare minimum required for even a virtual device after all.
--
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/