On 10/31/2013 03:02 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Josh Boyer (jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: >>> (As for memory-critical cloud... I have no idea what that is to be >>> honest. All I hear from the cloud people is "smaller is better". >>> Mostly that's image size, not memory overhead but I can imagine they >>> want that limited as well.) >> >> Admittedly, it's not the same as unswappable kernel memory, but I wonder if >> for 2MB we can find that sort of working set size reductions in other places >> on the cloud image. > > Quite possibly so. I just hate to be wasteful if none of the 3 > products clearly has a need. If 1024 is sufficient, we'll likely go > with that. > The reason I'm pushing 1024 as a target is that we had a previous request from users at SGI for a 1024. At least that is something we can point to instead of picking a value that no one really wants. IMO of course ;) P. _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
