On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 09:28, Lance Tagliapietra <[email protected]> wrote:
> b). My custom 2.4.30 kernel size is about 750K uncompressed. With setting the
> options to
> remove support for hardware that I don't have and features that I don't need,
> I still
> came up with a kernel of 2.7M. The goal is to have the smallest footprint
> kernel possible.
Yeah, minimum kernel size has increased :-(
> c). The 2.6.26 kernel seems to want to keep more memory free and hit the swap
> much more
> than the 2.4.30 kernel according to vmstat. Under 2.4.30 I see the free
> memory go as low
> as about 200K, and it will remain at that level as long as is necessary.
> Under 2.6.26,
> the free memory stays at about 800K, and if it drops below that, it will come
> back to that
> level relatively quickly.
As memory consumption is general. I didn't do exact measurements, but
2.6 consumes ca. 1.5 MiB
more on my A4000 (with 12 MiB of fast RAM). Booting and running Debian
is slow, while I used to
have more daemons installed, in a time the machine was actually used
as a mailserver for 70 people,
some of which read their email by logging in and running pine...
> d). The real time clock came up on the worng month, going from 2.4.30 to
> 2.6.26 (or 28),
> March vs April, in this case.
That's an interesting one...
In 2.4.30, you have both a2000_gettod() (for boot time setting), which does:
*monp = tod_2000.month1 * 10 + tod_2000.month2;
and amiga_hwclk() (for /dev/rtc), which does:
t->tm_mon = tod_2000.month1 * 10 + tod_2000.month2 - 1;
In 2.6.29, you only have a2000_hwclk(), which does
t->tm_mon = tod_2000.month1 * 10 + tod_2000.month2 - 1;
The data returned by a2000_gettod() is converted to seconds using mktime(),
which assumes months are in the range 1..12.
amiga_hwclk() and a2000_hwclk() both use struct rtc_time. This should
be similar to
struct tm in <time.h>, where the months are in the range 0..11.
Both rtc_proc_output()/gen_rtc_proc_output() (2.4.30) and
rtc_proc_show() (2.6.29) do
print tm.tm_mon + 1 to make them be in the range 1..12.
So at first sight, I don't see where the bug is...
What does `hwlock -ur` say, on both 2.4.30 and 2.6.29?
> Questions:
>
> e). Is there an option which tells the kernel the minimum amount of free RAM
> to maintain
> as I describe in (c) above? RAM is relatively precious in my m68k
> environment, and having
> 500k being held in reserve seems a bit much?
Probably one of those swappiness parameters under /sys. Don't ask me
which one...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
