Sat Sep 10 08:28:03 EDT 2005 rsc
I put this in in spirit, but I disagree with your rationale.
First, you already had this: you can say "no" or "uriel" to the
prompts asking about vgasize, monitor, and mouseport, and then
it won't start the graphics.
Second, this change by itself will do nothing to make the install
use less memory. The images are kept in the kernel, and the kernel
memory is set aside at boot time. So it might make a difference in
a VM, but on a real hw PC, unless you also set kernelpercent, you're
not saving any memory.
Third, if you don't have memory to put a few windows on the
screen, I see no reason to believe that things will improve in
the future. Are you going to be running Plan 9 in text mode
forever?
Fourth, and this is the real problem, I see no evidence that the
graphics in the install are taking up the bulk of the memory
footprint. I just booted an install CD, let it start fossil
and mount the CD, and then ran ps. I also poked around in the
kernel data structures with acid. Here's what I found in user space:
total in use: 4794 pages = 19176kB
4888k - ram file system holding install file system
1024k - rio
564k - dossrv
9156k - fossil
2224k - 9660srv
------
17854k
That leaves 1322k for the install programs themselves.
The fossil footprint varies with the amount of memory
available to user space. The rest are pretty much fixed.
In the kernel, on a 640x480x8 screen with a handful of
extra windows beyond the usual install windows, I'm using
800kB for graphics memory. Since there's no overlap the
total memory needed for a regular install won't be any more
than a full screen. If you're running 1024x768x32 that's
under 3MB. Compare that to the 10MB base user space install
footprint plus whatever fossil uses. Cutting to 1024x768x8
gets you under 1MB for the graphics, and is not nearly as
crippled as running the entire install in text mode.
I sure wish you guys would think these things through before
jumping to conclusions.
Russ
|