All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bart De Schuymer <bdschuym@pandora.be>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org,
	bridge@osdl.org, snort2004@mail.ru, gandalf@wlug.westbo.se,
	rusty@rustcorp.com.au, dwmw2@infradead.org, ak@suse.de,
	shemminger@osdl.org
Subject: [Bridge] Re: [PATCH/RFC] Reduce call chain length in netfilter
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:16:04 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1106860564.3389.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050127114726.2205b4ed.davem@davemloft.net>

Op do, 27-01-2005 te 11:47 -0800, schreef David S. Miller:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:50:50 +0100
> Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> wrote:
> 
> >  From what I can see it doesn't generate tail-calls currently:
> 
> Indeed... It even doesn't do this on Sparc64 either, even for
> the okfn(skb) call which I was sure it would.
> 
> It won't tail-call for function pointers for some strance reason
> as exhibited by this simple test:
> 
> struct sk_buff {
> 	int foo;
> };
> 
> int invoke(struct sk_buff *skb, int (*okfn)(struct sk_buff *))
> {
> 	return okfn(skb);
> }
> 
> extern int test_func(struct sk_buff *);
> 
> int invoke2(struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> 	return test_func(skb);
> }
> 
> In the generated asm on sparc64, invoke2() gets a tail-call
> whereas invoke() does not.  Hmmm...

Pasha (<snort2004@mail.ru>) is currently using a bridge-nf patch vs
2.4.29 with the changes I sent to you. After two days he sent me
(yesterday) a message that all is well. Without the patch he was getting
the stack overflow oopses.

cheers,
Bart



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Bart De Schuymer <bdschuym@pandora.be>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>,
	netdev@oss.sgi.com, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org,
	snort2004@mail.ru, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, ak@suse.de,
	bridge@osdl.org, gandalf@wlug.westbo.se, dwmw2@infradead.org,
	shemminger@osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Reduce call chain length in netfilter
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:16:04 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1106860564.3389.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050127114726.2205b4ed.davem@davemloft.net>

Op do, 27-01-2005 te 11:47 -0800, schreef David S. Miller:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:50:50 +0100
> Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net> wrote:
> 
> >  From what I can see it doesn't generate tail-calls currently:
> 
> Indeed... It even doesn't do this on Sparc64 either, even for
> the okfn(skb) call which I was sure it would.
> 
> It won't tail-call for function pointers for some strance reason
> as exhibited by this simple test:
> 
> struct sk_buff {
> 	int foo;
> };
> 
> int invoke(struct sk_buff *skb, int (*okfn)(struct sk_buff *))
> {
> 	return okfn(skb);
> }
> 
> extern int test_func(struct sk_buff *);
> 
> int invoke2(struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> 	return test_func(skb);
> }
> 
> In the generated asm on sparc64, invoke2() gets a tail-call
> whereas invoke() does not.  Hmmm...

Pasha (<snort2004@mail.ru>) is currently using a bridge-nf patch vs
2.4.29 with the changes I sent to you. After two days he sent me
(yesterday) a message that all is well. Without the patch he was getting
the stack overflow oopses.

cheers,
Bart

  reply	other threads:[~2005-01-27 21:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1131604877.20041218092730@mail.ru.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2004-12-18  7:50 ` do_IRQ: stack overflow: 872 Andi Kleen
2004-12-18 11:12   ` Bart De Schuymer
2004-12-18 11:14     ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-18 11:51       ` Bart De Schuymer
2004-12-18 13:53         ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-18 16:07           ` Re[2]: " Crazy AMD K7
2004-12-18 16:46             ` Bart De Schuymer
2005-01-07 17:05   ` David Woodhouse
2005-01-07 18:00     ` [Bridge] " Stephen Hemminger
2005-01-07 18:00       ` Stephen Hemminger
2005-01-07 18:06       ` [Bridge] " David Woodhouse
2005-01-07 18:06         ` David Woodhouse
2005-01-07 21:27       ` [Bridge] " Bart De Schuymer
2005-01-07 21:27         ` Bart De Schuymer
2005-01-18 21:57         ` [Bridge] " David S. Miller
2005-01-18 21:57           ` David S. Miller
2005-01-22 22:30           ` [Bridge] [PATCH/RFC] Reduce call chain length in netfilter (was: Re: do_IRQ: stack overflow: 872..) Bart De Schuymer
2005-01-22 22:30             ` Bart De Schuymer
2005-01-22 23:22             ` [Bridge] " Martin Josefsson
2005-01-22 23:22               ` Martin Josefsson
2005-01-23 12:40               ` [Bridge] " Bart De Schuymer
2005-01-23 12:40                 ` Bart De Schuymer
2005-01-23 16:08                 ` [Bridge] " Martin Josefsson
2005-01-23 16:08                   ` Martin Josefsson
2005-01-26  6:05                   ` [Bridge] " David S. Miller
2005-01-26  6:05                     ` David S. Miller
2005-01-26  9:08                     ` [Bridge] " Bart De Schuymer
2005-01-26  9:08                       ` Bart De Schuymer
2005-01-26 23:49                       ` [Bridge] Re: [PATCH/RFC] Reduce call chain length in netfilter Patrick McHardy
2005-01-26 23:49                         ` Patrick McHardy
2005-01-27  7:18                         ` [Bridge] " David S. Miller
2005-01-27  7:18                           ` David S. Miller
2005-01-27 17:50                           ` [Bridge] " Patrick McHardy
2005-01-27 17:50                             ` Patrick McHardy
2005-01-27 19:47                             ` [Bridge] " David S. Miller
2005-01-27 19:47                               ` David S. Miller
2005-01-27 21:16                               ` Bart De Schuymer [this message]
2005-01-27 21:16                                 ` Bart De Schuymer
2005-01-27 22:48                               ` [Bridge] " Patrick McHardy
2005-01-27 22:48                                 ` Patrick McHardy
2005-01-27 23:24                                 ` [Bridge] " David S. Miller
2005-01-27 23:24                                   ` David S. Miller
2005-01-28  0:08                                   ` [Bridge] " Patrick McHardy
2005-01-28  0:08                                     ` Patrick McHardy
2005-01-28  0:29                                   ` [Bridge] " Rusty Russell
2005-01-28  0:29                                     ` Rusty Russell
2005-01-28  1:10                                     ` [Bridge] " David S. Miller
2005-01-28  1:10                                       ` David S. Miller
2005-01-28  1:32                                       ` [Bridge] " Rusty Russell
2005-01-28  1:32                                         ` Rusty Russell
2005-01-28  1:35                                         ` [Bridge] " Patrick McHardy
2005-01-28  1:35                                           ` Patrick McHardy

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1106860564.3389.4.camel@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=bdschuym@pandora.be \
    --cc=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=bridge@osdl.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=gandalf@wlug.westbo.se \
    --cc=netdev@oss.sgi.com \
    --cc=netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --cc=shemminger@osdl.org \
    --cc=snort2004@mail.ru \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.