2.4 versus 2.6 patches
marcelo.tosatti at cyclades.com
Tue Aug 10 01:03:19 EST 2004
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 07:16:03PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407261021120.6190 at localhost.localdomain> you wrote:
> > Deployment if you're already almost ready to ship is sane enough, I
> > suppose -- but to actually put more effort into 2.4 wouldn't make much
> > sense.
> It depends on your requirements.
> If you need a kernel that is
> (1) stable and working [2.6 is still pretty much useless for example
> on 8xx systems],
> (2) small [2.6 is usually >= 20% bigger than 2.4],
Even with CONFIG_EMBEDDED or Matt Mackall's -tiny tree?
> (3) fast [2.6 is usually >= 10% slower than 2.4],
> then 2.4 may be the better choice.
Where are you you seeing this slowdown?
v2.6 is faster in almost all workloads (it often consumes less memory, VM/FS/core API's
are faster, etc).
rkload, and we are talking about embedded setups/workloads here.
So, I'm sure we should go hunt the slowdowns... At least make the kernel development
community known about them. For sure we should make efforts to fix any performance
regressions in v2.6.
> > Because nobody's really that interested in it. For what it's worth, I've
> > abandoned all pretence of continuing to support 2.4 in the MTD/JFFS2 CVS
> David, you can do what you want. But it is not up to you to decide
> what other people are doing. I declare that there ARE people who are
> interested in 2.4 kernel - both for maintenance and development work.
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-embedded