Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> wrote:
kernel or kernel source? If there was a good place in the kernel
source I'd not be against moving irqbalance there. [...]
would this be a good case study to use klibc and start up irqbalanced
automatically? I'd love it if we moved more of the 'system support'
userspace into the kernel proper, to keep it under control. (and to
simplify the compatibility and QA matrix)
..
Perhaps, but this also violates the principle that the kernel
should just *work* with sensible defaults. I don't use an initrd,
or an initramfs, and have no intention of ever doing so.
I *like* having a single boot image with no unneeded/unwanted complexity.
It's only recently that I've even come round to using some loadable
modules for things like network drivers -- I prefer a single image
for as much as possible (like Linus there).
If putting a C-library and utilities "into the kernel" still leaves
me with a single image file, then.. maybe. Seems clumsy, though.
Handling interrupts efficiently is a very basic, core function
for any operating system kernel. With CONFIG_IRQBALANCE=y, Linux is
fine at present. But that's not available in 64-bit mode,
so we have a deficiency there.
I guess I'll patch it into my kernels soon-ish.
Cheers
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
