Re: [PATCH] Driver Core: devtmpfs - kernel-maintained tmpfs-based/dev

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 12:14:39PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 12:17:31AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > For devtmpfs to be a realistic replacement for static /dev, it has to
> > > be comparable to static /dev in both speed and size.
> >
> > Since when is this requirement necessary?  You want something for free
> > in both speed and size?  Well, you got it in speed, but not size, it
> > will take up memory that is swapable, and a tiny ammount of non-swapable
> > kernel memory for the code.
> 
> Not so tiny when you count in the hotplug dependency.

devtmpfs does not rely on hotplug at all.

> > > WRT speed, there should be no  slowdown and it should be just as fast
> > > as a "tar -xp < dev.tar".
> >
> > Again, where is this requirement coming from?
> >
> > Have you timed devtmpfs?
> 
> Not yet, I am still waiting for the latest patch against .30.

I already pointed you at it.

> > > WRT size, it should not be dependent on hotplug, and instead offer
> > > hotplug as an option.
> >
> > Um, again, who made up such a requirement?  Are you running systems
> > today with CONFIG_HOTPLUG disabled?  If so, how well is that working for
> > you?
> 
> It's working out quite well.  I don't like hotplug, it's too slow.  I always 
> turn it and module-autoloading off, to achieve a much more responsive system.

What becomes "more responsive"?  What is too slow?

Anyway, this is quite off-topic for the original patch.  If you have
problems/issues with udev and CONFIG_HOTPLUG, let's take that to the
linux-hotplug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx list.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/