[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: making a smaller kernel
Removing "option CPU_I386" makes the kernel a little fat. Unless
CPU_I386 exists, the compiler option -march=i486 is passed to GCC,
which generates a little larger code for each function. This may be
By the way, how did you measure the sizes of the kernels? How did
the `size' command report?
[Kamo is the family name and Hiroyasu the given name.]
From: Andrew Falanga <email@example.com>
Subject: making a smaller kernel
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 11:03:20 -0700
> Hello everybody,
> Well, I finally got to the bottom of my compiling SSH woes and all.
> It was in fact RAM. Thankfully, though it wasn't bad RAM. I just had
> mixmatched RAM. 2 mod's were EDO, 2 other's weren't, and to top it all
> off I think that one set was parity and the other non.
> Anyway, on to other things. Although I know it's not necessary I
> decided to build my own kernel using the FAQ and afterboot(8) as my
> guide. I used the GENERIC kernel as the foundation, created myself my
> own building area copied over the GENERIC file to my build dir and
> edited the file removing several options. Stuff like, I have a 686
> (PPro) so I removed all support for i<whatever> save i686. I removed
> support for all but Linux binaries, at this point I don't see myself
> running binaries from any other platform on this box.
> Also, I removed the lines that specify sound card devices. I only
> left in sb, ecp and ess support. At this point, I don't even have a
> sound card in the box so I really don't need anything. (Note, by
> removing all I did was comment them out with a '#' sign.) Then, did
> make depend, make clean, make and walla out spit my own custom kernel.
> It works pretty good to, at least it booted and all things are
> functional. However, here's my question, after removing all that stuff
> why is my kernel 200k larger than the stock GENERIC kernel?
> GENERIC is 4.3mb, mine 4.5mb, what's up? Why is that? I would
> have thought otherwise.