Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:22:50 +0200 | From | Jan-Benedict Glaw <> | Subject | Re: Unbloating the kernel, was: :mem=16MB laptop testing |
| |
On Wed, 2003-10-15 06:06:45 -0700, William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> wrote in message <20031015130645.GJ765@holomorphy.com>: > On Tue, 2003-10-14 18:27:05 +0200, Maciej Zenczykowski <maze@cela.pl> > > wrote in message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310141813320.1776-100000@gaia.cela.pl>: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 01:45:14PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > Right. For a real lowmem system (4MB RAM) I defined printk to a no-op > > and gained 90K at the compressed image IIRC. This was 2.2.x, though. > > MfG, JBG > > The compressed image is hard to predict a runtime effect from; what did > it do to reserved memory at boot-time?
I'm not sure since this it's quite long ago (TM), but the effect was of about 210K IIRC. The apps we had running on that box (think embedded) *really* liked that 200K extra RAM. It made the difference between "swap to death" and "nearly not swapping"...
MfG, JBG
-- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 "Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak! ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA)); [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |