Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 15:34 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Linux During the roundtable discussion at LinuxCon this year, Linus Torvalds made some pretty harsh remarks about the current state of the Linux kernel, calling it "huge and bloated", and that there is no plan in sight to solve the problem. At the same time, he also explained that he is very happy with the current development process of the kernel, and that his job has become much easier.
Thread beginning with comment 385480
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
performance
by broch on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 16:41 UTC
broch
Member since:
2006-05-04

if you strip kernel from all that is not needed (for desktop/specific hardware), then it does not matter if things are build in the kernel or as modules, only gains are faster boot and smaller memory footprint but overall performance is the same. In fact it (performance) is deteriorating with each kernel release.
It is possible that recent discussion about cpu scheduler spurred to some extent Linus comments. Of course the problem does not only concerns cpu scheduler.

Reply Score: 4

RE: performance
by Tuishimi on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 17:04 in reply to "performance"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

What options are there? (Serious question). Can the kernel be redesigned in some way to improve size and efficiency without sacrificing the continual growth of functionality? That certainly would be no small task.

Edited 2009-09-22 17:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: performance
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 17:32 in reply to "RE: performance"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Can the kernel be redesigned in some way to improve size and efficiency without sacrificing the continual growth of functionality?


That is the million dollar question.

To wit, my opinion is only worth $0.02. And everyone knows pennies just clog the coin acceptor.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: performance
by broch on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 17:45 in reply to "RE: performance"
broch Member since:
2006-05-04

this (size and functionality) has nothing to do with the performance problem.

1) Apply wherever possible specialty tools:
CPU scheduler is a good example what options are there
CFS performance degraded seriously in time. It is big trying to me "smart"(er than..) and at the end we get crippled performance.
Now there is BFS, small and efficient for desktop use only.
Why not to have two schedulers

Trying to do everything is wors idea ever, get one cpu scheduler for servers another for desktop. Nowadays kernel is trying to be jack of all trades with mediocre results.

2) code reuse would also help (including size)

Reply Parent Score: 1