Re: [patch-2.3.46-p3] /proc/driver/microcode P6 ucode support

[Richard Gooch]

Alan Cox writes:
> > You see, Richard, there is a tiny problem. Many people will _really_ want
> > to configure DEVFS out of their kernels. Procfs is much more conservative
> > wrt dcache...
> 
> Procfs adds 90K to the running footprint of my machine, so I want to run it
> as a loadable module using old style /dev when building embedded boxes.
> The real disk /dev is the right answer for small machines along with
> sysctl without proc.
> 
> Devfs looks after the big machine issues better.

Ahem!
% ll fs/proc/proc.o fs/devfs/devfs.o 
-rw-r--r--   1 rgooch   computer    39171 Feb 17 16:16 fs/devfs/devfs.o
-rw-r--r--   1 rgooch   computer    47737 Feb 17 16:16 fs/proc/proc.o

Looks to me that devfs is more lightweight. On a typical workstation
(i.e. bigger than an embedded machine), add a few pages of data to
that.

So in fact, devfs is pretty lightweight. I'm not sure why people keep
saying otherwise. I've published numbers a couple of times before.

				Regards,

					Richard....
Permanent: [e-mail]
Current:   [e-mail]