On Wed, 2021-10-27 at 16:17 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 27.10.21 15:41, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-10-27 at 14:35 +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 12:48:13PM +0000, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > Linux version 5.11.0 > > > > Memory: 24052K/32768K available (3520K kernel code, 684K rwdata, 548K rodata, 320K init, 245K bss, 8716K reserved, 0K cma-reserved) > > > > > > > > Versus: > > > > > > > > Linux version 5.10.75 > > > > Memory: 11836K/32768K available (3518K kernel code, 684K rwdata, 540K rodata, 320K init, 244K bss, 20932K reserved, 0K cma-reserved) > > > > > > ... you're complaining that we reduced the amount of reserved ram? > > > You know that 5.11.0 is more recent than 5.10.75, right? > > > > Sort of :) > > No kernel I have used earlier has reserved so much RAM in the past so I figure that > > 20 MB in 5.10 is a regression. > > > > Reason for using 5.10 is that it is an LTS kernel that will be around for quite a while. > > Do you have any comparison against older v5.10 kernels -- IOW, is it a > regression within the LTS kernels or has it "simply been optimized" > starting with v5.11 ? I don't have anything older, we just got started with this project and tried these 2 kernels. Previous system was ppc with 4.19.x and that is even lower than the two 5.x kernels. > > (a lot of things count as reserved, including the initial ramdisk until > eventually freed, but I assume your setup really just exchanges the kernel) > Sure, but this just booting kernel without any disk/fs. The difference should not be that extrem in 5.10 vs 5.11, should they?
