All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, agk@redhat.com
Subject: Re: stack overflow on Sparc64
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:01:58 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0806190845300.6330@engineering.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080618.233713.87158879.davem@davemloft.net>

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, David Miller wrote:

> From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:17:39 -0400 (EDT)
>
>> I see ... the callee writes arguments into caller's stack frame, if it has
>> variable number of arguments. That it misdesign, the callee should write
>> registers arguments into it's own frame like on AMD64 (then this space
>> would be allocated only if needed).
>
> The callee can do this even for non-variable argument lists.
>
> It's like a set of pre-allocated stack slots for those incoming
> argument registers when reloading under register pressure.
>
> In my opinion it is better to put this onus on the callee because only
> the callee knows if it needs to pop these values onto the stack to
> alleviate register pressure.
>
> I think it might be possible for the compiler to only use 176 bytes.
> I'll take a look at the gcc sparc backend and the ABI specification
> to see if this is the case.

Yes, it could be shrunk to 176 bytes. Maybe there could be some 
performance problems if the spills are cacheline-unaligned. Or better --- 
make special -mkernel-abi function to gcc that will drop this area at all 
and make 128-byte frames. In kernel it wouldn't matter that ABI is 
incompatible.

Mikulas

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, agk@redhat.com
Subject: Re: stack overflow on Sparc64
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:01:58 -0400 (EDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0806190845300.6330@engineering.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080618.233713.87158879.davem@davemloft.net>

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, David Miller wrote:

> From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:17:39 -0400 (EDT)
>
>> I see ... the callee writes arguments into caller's stack frame, if it has
>> variable number of arguments. That it misdesign, the callee should write
>> registers arguments into it's own frame like on AMD64 (then this space
>> would be allocated only if needed).
>
> The callee can do this even for non-variable argument lists.
>
> It's like a set of pre-allocated stack slots for those incoming
> argument registers when reloading under register pressure.
>
> In my opinion it is better to put this onus on the callee because only
> the callee knows if it needs to pop these values onto the stack to
> alleviate register pressure.
>
> I think it might be possible for the compiler to only use 176 bytes.
> I'll take a look at the gcc sparc backend and the ABI specification
> to see if this is the case.

Yes, it could be shrunk to 176 bytes. Maybe there could be some 
performance problems if the spills are cacheline-unaligned. Or better --- 
make special -mkernel-abi function to gcc that will drop this area at all 
and make 128-byte frames. In kernel it wouldn't matter that ABI is 
incompatible.

Mikulas

  reply	other threads:[~2008-06-19 13:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 86+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-06-18  0:47 stack overflow on Sparc64 Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-18  0:47 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-18  4:01 ` David Miller
2008-06-18  4:01   ` David Miller
2008-06-19  3:24   ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-19  3:24     ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-19  3:59     ` David Miller
2008-06-19  3:59       ` David Miller
2008-06-19  5:17       ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-19  5:17         ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-19  6:37         ` David Miller
2008-06-19  6:37           ` David Miller
2008-06-19 13:01           ` Mikulas Patocka [this message]
2008-06-19 13:01             ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 15:47   ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 15:47     ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 17:26     ` David Miller
2008-06-20 17:26       ` David Miller
2008-06-20 20:34       ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 20:34         ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 20:37         ` David Miller
2008-06-20 20:37           ` David Miller
2008-06-20 21:26           ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 21:26             ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 21:41             ` David Miller
2008-06-20 21:41               ` David Miller
2008-06-21  4:51               ` David Miller
2008-06-21  4:51                 ` David Miller
2008-06-21 19:42                 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-21 19:42                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-22  7:03                   ` David Miller
2008-06-22  7:03                     ` David Miller
2008-06-22 13:48                     ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-22 13:48                       ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-08-12  6:30                   ` David Miller
2008-08-12  6:30                     ` David Miller
2008-08-12  8:22                     ` David Miller
2008-08-12  8:22                       ` David Miller
2008-08-13  0:53                       ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-08-13  0:53                         ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-08-13  0:59                         ` David Miller
2008-08-13  0:59                           ` David Miller
2008-08-13  1:11                     ` console handover badness [was: stack overflow on Sparc64] Mikulas Patocka
2008-08-13  1:11                       ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-08-13  1:22                       ` console handover badness David Miller
2008-08-13  1:22                         ` David Miller
2008-08-13  1:40                       ` David Miller
2008-08-13  1:40                         ` David Miller
2008-08-13  8:50                         ` David Miller
2008-08-13  8:50                           ` David Miller
2008-08-13 12:46                         ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-08-13 12:46                           ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-08-14  3:25                           ` David Miller
2008-08-14  3:25                             ` David Miller
2008-08-14 23:11                             ` Bootmem allocator broken [was: console handover badness] Mikulas Patocka
2008-08-14 23:11                               ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-08-14 23:25                               ` Bootmem allocator broken David Miller
2008-08-14 23:25                                 ` David Miller
2008-08-15 11:09                                 ` Alexander Beregalov
2008-08-15 11:09                                   ` Alexander Beregalov
2008-08-15 21:13                                   ` David Miller
2008-08-15 21:13                                     ` David Miller
2008-08-14 23:40                               ` Johannes Weiner
2008-08-14 23:40                                 ` Johannes Weiner
2008-06-20 21:14       ` stack overflow on Sparc64 Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 21:14         ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 21:20         ` David Miller
2008-06-20 21:20           ` David Miller
2008-06-20 21:25           ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 21:25             ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 21:44             ` David Miller
2008-06-20 21:44               ` David Miller
2008-06-20 21:47               ` David Miller
2008-06-20 21:47                 ` David Miller
2008-06-20 22:22                 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 22:22                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 22:28                   ` David Miller
2008-06-20 22:28                     ` David Miller
2008-06-20 22:36                     ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 22:36                       ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 22:47                       ` David Miller
2008-06-20 22:47                         ` David Miller
2008-06-21  0:37                         ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-21  0:37                           ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 22:33               ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-06-20 22:33                 ` Mikulas Patocka

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=Pine.LNX.4.64.0806190845300.6330@engineering.redhat.com \
    --to=mpatocka@redhat.com \
    --cc=agk@redhat.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.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.