Ralf Mardorf <ralf-mardorf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2023-04-03 at 10:37 +0000, u34@xxxxxxx wrote: > > I did nothing to make it use tmpfs. Should I explicitly take some actions > > to get it outside of tmpfs? > > Hi, > > no you don't need to take any action. > > I suspect my other idea to disable tmpfs entirely is entirely idiotic. > > $ df -h | grep tmpfs > tmpfs 16G 0 16G 0% /dev/shm > tmpfs 16G 8.0K 16G 1% /tmp > tmpfs 3.2G 64K 3.2G 1% /run/user/1000 > ^^^^Used^ > Disabling tmpfs would probably even not really free those 72K. > > If you should share RAM for the framebuffer, reducing the framebuffer > size might make a difference. > > I can't comment on "tinyconfig" or "localmodconfig", but this is what I > would try. > Hello, I could compile tinyconfig. With localmodconfig, it seems to get nowhwre. I added a lot of swap sapce, more then my total RAM. It seems to use only a tiny part of the swap addition. I don't know what it was exactly doing. I won't be surprised if it mostly transfered data from swap to RAM and vice versa. Doing negliable work, if at all, while swaping in and out. I hope the most beneficial item of this message is to mention the 6GB at the URL in the reply of Damjan Georgievski. https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/users/80dccca1a3964851a69e37d36e681a00/ -> https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-6.3-objtool . Though I don't know how much more, or less, than 6GB will be actually required to compile linux for, and on, a low end desktop. -- u34 > Regards, > Ralf
