On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 04:00:33PM -0700, David VomLehn wrote:
> Parag Warudkar wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Linus Torvalds
>> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> And embedded people (the ones that might care about 1% code size) are the
>>> ones that would also want smaller stacks even more!
>>
>> This is something I never understood - embedded devices are not going
>> to run more than a few processes and 4K*(Few Processes)
>> IMHO is not worth a saving now a days even in embedded world given
>> falling memory prices. Or do I misunderstand?
>
> Embedded applications span a huge range of sizes, from the very small
> devices to which you refer, to quite complex devices. The cable settop
> boxes we develop have over a hundred interrupt sources, typically run
> 250-300 threads, and have 192+ MiB of memory. For all that, we are very
> cost sensitive and are under constant pressure to come up with reliable
> ways to save memory.
As you say correctly the term "embedded" gets used for many different
devices.
And if you have 192+ MiB of memory you have so much that all these
kernel size discussions don't really matter.
> David VomLehn
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
