From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:38:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from p508B5A9E.dip.t-dialin.net ([IPv6:::ffff:80.139.90.158]:15510 "EHLO mail.linux-mips.net") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:37:57 +0000 Received: from dea.linux-mips.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.linux-mips.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hACKbrA0018468; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:37:53 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by dea.linux-mips.net (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hACKboxF018467; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:37:50 +0100 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:37:50 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Wolfgang Denk Cc: David Kesselring , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: snapgear and uClinux Message-ID: <20031112203750.GD18124@linux-mips.org> References: <20031112164810.355ECC5F59@atlas.denx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031112164810.355ECC5F59@atlas.denx.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 3611 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:48:05PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > processor? Did you have any unexpected suprises? Do these tools help get > > the footprint smaller or is it easier to do something with the linux-mips > > tree? > If you have a MMU on your chip you should always go for the "real" Linux. > > Reducing the memory footprint is not so much a kernel issue but one > of the application level - using standard tools linked against glibc > vs. busybox with uClibc for example. Certain mechanism such as copy on write are only possible with an MMU and can achieve dramatic memory savings. The common believe that memory protection results in significant overhead isn't true anymore, so Wolfgang ist certainly right here. Ralf