Am 10.04.2013 15:27, schrieb Matthew Jacob:
On 4/9/2013 11:53 PM, Daniel Braniss wrote:
this host can run x11 apps! so 'Huge' is a relative matter, my first
PDP11/45 has 64K :-) danny
Bah. Real old farts ran munix on a 32k PDP 11/03- shell and apps in
the low 16k and the kernel in the upper. Or
On 2013-Apr-09 11:05:56 -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
>You have to look at the in-memory sizes, not the on-disk sizes.
Or, even better, look at the difference between installed physical RAM
and how much RAM is available to userland processes.
--
Peter Jeremy
pgpOHqKqYTU0M.pgp
Description: PGP si
On 10 April 2013 13:06, Joshua Isom wrote:
>
> I upgraded my system with 32Gb for a reason.
Yes, yes you did.
TO force me to fix ath(4) and busdma. ;-)
Adrian
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/fre
On 4/10/2013 9:43 AM, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
The last I heard, LTO on the kernel required something like 16 GB of RAM and
produced a not-quite-working image.
Jon
I upgraded my system with 32Gb for a reason.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org maili
On Tuesday, 9 April 2013 at 22:18, Joshua Isom wrote:
> Would clang's LTO help for size? I know work's starting on the bsd
> elftools ld, but I doubt it has any LTO support yet. Running -Os on the
> kernel as a whole instead of object files could probably help a lot
> also. I might try to set it up
On 4/9/2013 11:53 PM, Daniel Braniss wrote:
this host can run x11 apps! so 'Huge' is a relative matter, my first
PDP11/45 has 64K :-) danny
Bah. Real old farts ran munix on a 32k PDP 11/03- shell and apps in the
low 16k and the kernel in the upper. Or was it the other way around? At
Tektronix,
> > happy that FreeBSD is among the selected organization.
> >
> > I am a third year student interested to work in the field of embedded
> > system. I applied last year and the title of my project was " Kernel Size
> why only in embedded system. smaller programs are always good :)
>
> And yes Free
On 4/9/2013 1:47 PM, Edward Tomasz Napierała wrote:
In order to optimize - in this case for size - we need a way to measure
what should we focus on, and it looks like we don't have it yet.
Would it be possible to write a tool - e.g. by instrumenting LLVM - that
would make it possible to calculat
On 9 April 2013 11:47, Edward Tomasz Napierała wrote:
> In order to optimize - in this case for size - we need a way to measure
> what should we focus on, and it looks like we don't have it yet.
We have a good starting point. We can look at the code/data/bss from
each .o file that's included in t
In order to optimize - in this case for size - we need a way to measure
what should we focus on, and it looks like we don't have it yet.
Would it be possible to write a tool - e.g. by instrumenting LLVM - that
would make it possible to calculate, for every function in the call graph,
the amount of
Hello, Kimmo.
You wrote 9 апреля 2013 г., 21:59:37:
KP> Your comparison is far from accurate, include the memory taken by
KP> loaded kernel modules on both systems and then you might get some
KP> proper numbers.
Linux is known to _work_ on SOHO MIPS boxes, with 4MiB of flash and
16MiB of RAM. Y
You have to look at the in-memory sizes, not the on-disk sizes.
Linux kernels are very barebones when it comes to what is compiled directly
into the kernel image on disk. Everything else is loaded from modules at
boot time. Especially if using distro-provided kernels. They even use ram
disks /
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
>>> And yes FreeBSD kernel is huge. doesn't really matter with 1GB or more
>>> RAM but yes - it is huge even relative to linux.
>>
>>
>> Ah, any insight as to why?
>
> my custom compiled kernel:
>
> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 8791402 6 kwi 22
And yes FreeBSD kernel is huge. doesn't really matter with 1GB or more RAM
but yes - it is huge even relative to linux.
Ah, any insight as to why?
my custom compiled kernel:
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 8791402 6 kwi 22:08 /boot//kernel/kernel
only with features i need. linux is AFAIK like 3-4
On 4/9/13 10:36 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
happy that FreeBSD is among the selected organization.
I am a third year student interested to work in the field of embedded
system. I applied last year and the title of my project was " Kernel
Size
why only in embedded system. smaller programs are al
happy that FreeBSD is among the selected organization.
I am a third year student interested to work in the field of embedded
system. I applied last year and the title of my project was " Kernel Size
why only in embedded system. smaller programs are always good :)
And yes FreeBSD kernel is huge.
On 4/8/13 6:42 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Well, it's relatively easy to experience what it's like.
No it's not. We all have jobs that demand different things from us.
Taking the time to guess at the problem, only to be told "you're doing
it wrong" by someone actually in the position to build t
On 8 April 2013 19:28, Kevin Day wrote:
> Ages ago we had to make things work in 16 or 32MB of total system memory on
> i386.
>
> For the most part, disabling every compiled-in option/driver we didn't need
> was 90% of the effort. Which options/drivers is going to be totally
> application depe
On Apr 8, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> However, until a bunch of embedded folks come forward and state what they are
> really willing to sacrifice, then we won't really have anything to go on, and
> it will be guessing at what will work for a space that not all of us are
> famil
Well, it's relatively easy to experience what it's like.
Reboot your machine with 32mb. Try to do things like bring up network
interfaces. Snark when stupid stuff occurs, like you can't allocate
enough mbufs for the driver RX path _and_ run the ifconfig command to
completion to bring said interfac
On 4/8/13 4:10 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hi,
Your idea is interesting, but it doesn't fix the underlying problem -
there's just too much code. :(
If you were to API'ify some of the more basic things such as fget,
fdrop, filedesc stuff you could potentially swap out the systems for
simpler (albe
Hi,
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 20:28:04 +
Amit Rawat wrote:
> GSOC posted the list of selected organization for GSOC 2013 and I am
> highly happy that FreeBSD is among the selected organization.
>
> I am a third year student interested to work in the field of embedded
> system. I applied last year
Hi,
Your idea is interesting, but it doesn't fix the underlying problem -
there's just too much code. :(
Adrian
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "fr
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 08:28:04PM +, Amit Rawat wrote:
> GSOC posted the list of selected organization for GSOC 2013 and I am
> highly happy that FreeBSD is among the selected organization.
> I am a third year student interested to work in the field of embedded
> system. I applied last year a
GSOC posted the list of selected organization for GSOC 2013 and I am highly
happy that FreeBSD is among the selected organization.
I am a third year student interested to work in the field of embedded
system. I applied last year and the title of my project was " Kernel Size
Reduction for Embedded
25 matches
Mail list logo
