On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 01:17:58PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 11:32 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > We simply can not compete with user space, as a programmer is free to > > > keep what he really wants/needs. > > > > Not true. > > You can shake the kernel as much as you want, you wont make : > - a TCP socket > - a dentry > - an inode > - a file structure > - eventpoll structures (assuming epoll use) > - 2 dst per flow. > > In 1024 bytes of memory, and keep an efficient kernel to handle > arbitrary number of sockets using the venerable and slow BSD socket api. > > I was objecting to the "crazy things like LWIP" comment from Josh, not > to your patches in general.
My primary statement was that it's crazy to use something like LWIP just because you want a *tiny* system. We could argue about using LWIP because you want a massively scalable system, or one that more closely couples userspace and the kernel, but that's not the current goal in any case. So let's drop that branch of the thread. :) > I actually took a look at them but stopped at patch 22 > > Adding ~1000 lines of code to save few KB was the point I gave up. Please consider ignoring that one and reading the rest; we could always handle the routing table issue separately. - Josh Triplett -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/