From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>
To: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Embedded Linux PPC list <linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>
Subject: Re: 2.4 versus 2.6 patches
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 12:03:19 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040809150319.GD5733@logos.cnet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040726171608.12880C109F@atlas.denx.de>
Hi Wolfgang!
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 07:16:03PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407261021120.6190@localhost.localdomain> you wrote:
> >
> > Deployment if you're already almost ready to ship is sane enough, I
> > suppose -- but to actually put more effort into 2.4 wouldn't make much
> > sense.
>
> It depends on your requirements.
>
> If you need a kernel that is
> (1) stable and working [2.6 is still pretty much useless for example
> on 8xx systems],
> (2) small [2.6 is usually >= 20% bigger than 2.4],
> and/or
Even with CONFIG_EMBEDDED or Matt Mackall's -tiny tree?
> (3) fast [2.6 is usually >= 10% slower than 2.4],
> then 2.4 may be the better choice.
Where are you you seeing this slowdown?
v2.6 is faster in almost all workloads (it often consumes less memory, VM/FS/core API's
are faster, etc).
rkload, and we are talking about embedded setups/workloads here.
So, I'm sure we should go hunt the slowdowns... At least make the kernel development
community known about them. For sure we should make efforts to fix any performance
regressions in v2.6.
> > Because nobody's really that interested in it. For what it's worth, I've
> > abandoned all pretence of continuing to support 2.4 in the MTD/JFFS2 CVS
>
> David, you can do what you want. But it is not up to you to decide
> what other people are doing. I declare that there ARE people who are
> interested in 2.4 kernel - both for maintenance and development work.
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-09 15:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-23 14:57 2.4 versus 2.6 patches Robert P. J. Day
2004-07-24 15:20 ` David Woodhouse
2004-07-26 2:50 ` Song Sam
2004-07-26 4:13 ` David Woodhouse
2004-07-26 4:40 ` Eugene Surovegin
2004-07-26 13:48 ` Song Sam
2004-07-26 14:27 ` David Woodhouse
2004-07-26 15:08 ` Mark Chambers
2004-07-26 15:53 ` Robert P. J. Day
2004-07-26 16:30 ` Eugene Surovegin
2004-07-26 23:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2004-07-26 23:49 ` Eugene Surovegin
2004-07-27 0:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2004-07-29 19:30 ` David Woodhouse
2004-07-26 17:16 ` Wolfgang Denk
2004-08-09 15:03 ` Marcelo Tosatti [this message]
2004-07-27 3:13 ` Song Sam
2004-08-09 13:28 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-08-10 5:58 ` Song Sam
2004-08-10 11:54 ` Marcelo Tosatti
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-07-26 16:48 Demke, Torsten
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040809150319.GD5733@logos.cnet \
--to=marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org \
--cc=wd@denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).