From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org,
mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: Large stack usage in fs code (especially for PPC64)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:31:37 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081117133137.616cf287.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811171320330.18283@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:23:23 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Far be it from me to apportion blame, but THIS IS ALL LINUS'S FAULT!!!!! :)
> >
> > I fixed this six years ago. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/6/17/68
>
> Btw, in that thread I also said:
>
> "If we have 64kB pages, such architectures will have to have a bigger
> kernel stack. Which they will have, simply by virtue of having the very
> same bigger page. So that problem kind of solves itself."
>
> and that may still be the "right" solution - if somebody is so insane that
> they want 64kB pages, then they might as well have a 64kB kernel stack as
> well.
I'd have thought so, but I'm sure we're about to hear how important an
optimisation the smaller stacks are ;)
> Trust me, the kernel stack isn't where you blow your memory with a 64kB
> page. You blow all your memory on the memory fragmentation of your page
> cache. I did the stats for the kernel source tree a long time ago, and I
> think you wasted something like 4GB of RAM with a 64kB page size.
>
Yup. That being said, the younger me did assert that "this is a neater
implementation anyway". If we can implement those loops without
needing those on-stack temporary arrays then things probably are better
overall.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
paulus@samba.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: Large stack usage in fs code (especially for PPC64)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:31:37 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081117133137.616cf287.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811171320330.18283@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:23:23 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Far be it from me to apportion blame, but THIS IS ALL LINUS'S FAULT!!!!! :)
> >
> > I fixed this six years ago. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/6/17/68
>
> Btw, in that thread I also said:
>
> "If we have 64kB pages, such architectures will have to have a bigger
> kernel stack. Which they will have, simply by virtue of having the very
> same bigger page. So that problem kind of solves itself."
>
> and that may still be the "right" solution - if somebody is so insane that
> they want 64kB pages, then they might as well have a 64kB kernel stack as
> well.
I'd have thought so, but I'm sure we're about to hear how important an
optimisation the smaller stacks are ;)
> Trust me, the kernel stack isn't where you blow your memory with a 64kB
> page. You blow all your memory on the memory fragmentation of your page
> cache. I did the stats for the kernel source tree a long time ago, and I
> think you wasted something like 4GB of RAM with a 64kB page size.
>
Yup. That being said, the younger me did assert that "this is a neater
implementation anyway". If we can implement those loops without
needing those on-stack temporary arrays then things probably are better
overall.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
paulus@samba.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: Large stack usage in fs code (especially for PPC64)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:31:37 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081117133137.616cf287.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811171320330.18283@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:23:23 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Far be it from me to apportion blame, but THIS IS ALL LINUS'S FAULT!!!!! :)
> >
> > I fixed this six years ago. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/6/17/68
>
> Btw, in that thread I also said:
>
> "If we have 64kB pages, such architectures will have to have a bigger
> kernel stack. Which they will have, simply by virtue of having the very
> same bigger page. So that problem kind of solves itself."
>
> and that may still be the "right" solution - if somebody is so insane that
> they want 64kB pages, then they might as well have a 64kB kernel stack as
> well.
I'd have thought so, but I'm sure we're about to hear how important an
optimisation the smaller stacks are ;)
> Trust me, the kernel stack isn't where you blow your memory with a 64kB
> page. You blow all your memory on the memory fragmentation of your page
> cache. I did the stats for the kernel source tree a long time ago, and I
> think you wasted something like 4GB of RAM with a 64kB page size.
>
Yup. That being said, the younger me did assert that "this is a neater
implementation anyway". If we can implement those loops without
needing those on-stack temporary arrays then things probably are better
overall.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-17 21:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 75+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-17 20:34 Large stack usage in fs code (especially for PPC64) Steven Rostedt
2008-11-17 20:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-11-17 20:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-11-17 20:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-11-17 21:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-17 21:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-17 21:25 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-11-17 21:25 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-11-18 0:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-11-18 0:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-11-18 1:05 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-11-18 1:05 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-11-18 1:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-11-18 1:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-11-18 2:01 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-11-18 2:01 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-11-17 22:16 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-11-17 22:16 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-11-17 23:30 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-11-17 23:30 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-11-17 23:04 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-11-17 23:04 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-11-18 2:29 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-11-18 2:29 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-11-18 2:36 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-11-18 2:36 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-11-18 5:40 ` David Miller
2008-11-18 5:40 ` David Miller
2008-11-17 21:08 ` Andrew Morton
2008-11-17 21:08 ` Andrew Morton
2008-11-17 21:08 ` Andrew Morton
2008-11-17 21:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-17 21:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-17 21:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-17 21:31 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2008-11-17 21:31 ` Andrew Morton
2008-11-17 21:31 ` Andrew Morton
2008-11-17 21:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-17 21:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-17 21:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-17 23:17 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-11-17 23:17 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-11-17 23:17 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-11-17 21:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-17 21:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-17 22:53 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-11-17 22:53 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-11-18 10:07 ` Nick Piggin
2008-11-18 10:07 ` Nick Piggin
2008-11-17 23:13 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-11-17 23:13 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-11-17 23:22 ` Josh Boyer
2008-11-17 23:22 ` Josh Boyer
2008-11-17 23:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-17 23:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-18 0:11 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-11-18 0:11 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-11-18 2:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-18 2:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-18 10:24 ` Nick Piggin
2008-11-18 10:24 ` Nick Piggin
2008-11-18 11:44 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-11-18 11:44 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-11-18 16:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-18 16:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-18 7:25 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-11-18 7:25 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-11-17 23:03 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-11-17 23:03 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-11-18 9:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-11-18 9:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-11-18 10:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-18 10:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-11-17 23:30 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-11-17 23:30 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
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=20081117133137.616cf287.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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.