On Friday 07 September 2007 17:31, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 18:07 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > A bit extended version: > > > > In the process in making it work I saw ~10% vmlinux size reductions > > (which basically matches what Marcelo says) when I wasn't retaining > > sections needed for EXPORT_SYMBOLs, but module loading didn't work. > > > > Thus I fixed that by adding KEEP() directives so that EXPORT_SYMBOLs > > are never discarded. This was just one of many fixes until kernel > > started to actually boot and work. > > > > I did that before I posted patches to lkml. > > IOW: posted patches are not broken versus module loading. > > Ok, this is more like the explanation I was looking for.. > > During this thread you seemed to indicate the patches you release > reduced the kernel ~10% , but now your saying that was pre-release , > right?
CONFIG_MODULE=n will save ~10% CONFIG_MODULE=y - ~1% Exact figure depends on .config (whether you happen to include especially "fat" code or not). I want to explain a bit where I am coming from. I am working on busybox, and last release made busybox smaller by "whopping" 2%. This is the result of a hundred or so of small code and data shrinks. It basically means that I am close to the point of diminishing returns trying to make busybox smaller, and memory wastage on the running embedded system is now elsewhere - including kernel. -- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/