From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [Bug #11342] Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c - bisected Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:02:13 +0100 Message-ID: <20080826190213.GA30255@shareable.org> References: <48B313E0.1000501@hp.com> <200808261111.19205.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20080826183051.GB10925@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Adrian Bunk , Rusty Russell , "Alan D. Brunelle" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Ingo Molnar , linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > The inline-functions-called-once thing is what causes even big functions > to be inlined, and that's where you find the big downsides too (eg the > stack usage). That's a bit bizarre, though, isn't it? A function which is only called from one place should, if everything made sense, _never_ use more stack through being inlined. Inlining should just increase the opportunities that the called function's local variables can share the same stack slots are the caller's dead locals. Whereas not inlining guarantees they occupy separate, immediately adjacent regions of the stack, and shouldn't be increasing the total numbers of local variables. -- Jamie