On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 21:14 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > have you applied the zlib patches too? In particular this one should
> > > make a difference:
> > >
> > > http://redhat.com/~mingo/latency-tracing-patches/patches/reduce-zlib-stack-hack.patch
> > >
> > > If you didnt have this applied, could you apply it and retry with
> > > stack-footprint-debugging again?
> >
> > Ingo, instead of having a static work area and using locking, why not
> > just move those fields into the "z_stream" structure, and thus make
> > them be per-stream? The z_stream structure should already be allocated
> > with kmalloc() or similar by the caller, so that also gets it off the
> > stack without the locking thing.
> >
> > Hmm?
>
> yeah, i'll implement that. The above one was just a quick hack that
> somehow survived. (and i am definitely a wimp when it comes to changing
> zlib internals :-)
Ingo,
If you get a chance would you mind porting this to 2.6.16-rc1? I only
get 6 failures when applying the 2.6.15-rc7 patch set.
I'd like to be able to catch any 2.6.16 latency regressions while there
is time to do something about them, to avoid a repeat of the unmap_vmas
problem in 2.6.15.
Lee
-
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]
