1 |
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: |
2 |
> To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if |
3 |
> you use the "default" kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it does |
4 |
> not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/ |
5 |
|
6 |
So if we were to switch to udev 061 in genkernel, it would shrink memory |
7 |
usage in our initrd/initramfs, provided we made everything use the LSB |
8 |
device names/nodes, versus the devfs ones, correct? |
9 |
|
10 |
> If we can move away from some of our devfs-like names, we stand to |
11 |
> reclaim a lot of memory from everyone's machines. As an example, if we |
12 |
> drop all of the tty/pts/vc/vcc symlinks, and just go with the default |
13 |
> kernel name, we save 2.5Mb of space in tempfs/ramfs. I've done this on |
14 |
> my machines and everything seems to work just fine (it looks like |
15 |
> everything that was trying to use a tty node was just using the symlink |
16 |
> anyway.) |
17 |
> |
18 |
> So, anyone have any objections to me changing the default udev naming |
19 |
> scheme in this manner? |
20 |
|
21 |
None here. Anything that gives us more usable RAM even after we've |
22 |
snatched some for the initrd and for /dev and for the tmpfs of the |
23 |
LiveCD/InstallCD is fine by me. |
24 |
|
25 |
-- |
26 |
Chris Gianelloni |
27 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
28 |
Games - Developer |
29 |
Gentoo Linux |