On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 11:45:24AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Friday December 16, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > The nfsd code uses inline in too many places.
>
> Does it?
> Most of the uses are either
> - truly tiny bits of code
That's OK if they stay tiny and don't grow as time passes by.
> - code that is used only once which, as you as, will not currently
> be auto-inlined on i386, so we do it by hand.
That's OK if it isn't forgotten to un-inline them when they get more
callers.
Unfortunately, people often don't check whether an "inline" is still
appropriate when the code evolves.
Unless this is an extreme hot path, it's therefore IMHO not a good idea
to use "inline" in such cases.
Additionally, it's a medium-term goal for me to re-enable unit-at-a-time
on i386 for recent gcc's.
> An exception is some of the xdr code.
> If I
> #define inline
> in nfs3xdr.c, the nfsd.o changes from
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 76132 3464 2408 82004 14054 ../mm-i386/fs/nfsd/nfsd.o
> to
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 72452 3464 2408 78324 131f4 ../mm-i386/fs/nfsd/nfsd.o
> which is probably a win.
>
> Is that what you were referring to?
I didn't had one specific example in mind, but yes this seems to be an
example for inline's that might have been reasonable at one time in the
past, but are no longer today.
> > If this struct is really a problem (which I doubt considering it's
> > size), I'd prefer it being kmalloc'ed.
>
> It's hard to *know* if it is a problem, but I am conscious that nfsd
> adds measurably to stack depth for filesystem paths, and probably
> isn't measured nearly as often.
> It's true that 50 bytes out of 4K isn't a lot, but wastage that can be
> avoided, should be avoided.
"make checkstack" tells that nfsd_vfs_write is below 100 bytes of stack
usage. So even calling 30 such functions would not get you above
3 kB stack usage.
It's also interesting that according to Jörn Engel's static analysis of
call paths in kernel 2.6.11 [1], the string "nfs" does occur in neither
any of the functions involved in call paths with > 2 kB stack usage, nor
in any recursive call paths.
It's OK to use some bytes from the stack, and you haven't yet convinced
me that the code you are responsible for is using too much stack. ;-)
> NeilBrown
cu
Adrian
[1] http://wh.fh-wedel.de/~joern/stackcheck.2.6.11
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
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]
