From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n95L3A8g239365 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:03:10 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id A727117395A0 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 14:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 86sUiUltBmaKZkEx for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4ACA5EB0.4010707@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:01:36 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: stack bloat after stackprotector changes List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs mailing list Cc: Tejun Heo It seems that after: commit 5d707e9c8ef2a3596ed5c975c6ff05cec890c2b4 Author: Tejun Heo Date: Mon Feb 9 22:17:39 2009 +0900 stackprotector: update make rules xfs stack usage jumped up a fair bit; before: 376 xfs_bmapi 328 xfs_bulkstat 296 _xfs_trans_commit 264 xfs_iomap_write_delay 248 xlog_do_recovery_pass 248 xfs_symlink 248 xfs_file_ioctl 232 xfs_bunmapi 224 xfs_trans_unreserve_and_mod_sb 216 xfs_file_compat_ioctl 216 xfs_cluster_write 216 xfs_bmap_del_extent 200 xfs_probe_cluster 200 xfs_page_state_convert 200 xfs_iomap_write_direct 200 xfs_getbmap ... after: 408 xfs_bmapi 344 xfs_bulkstat 312 _xfs_trans_commit 312 xfs_file_ioctl 296 xfs_file_compat_ioctl 280 xfs_iomap_write_delay 264 xlog_do_recovery_pass 264 xfs_symlink 264 xfs_bunmapi 248 xfs_bmap_del_extent 248 xfs_bmap_add_extent_delay_real 240 xfs_trans_unreserve_and_mod_sb 232 xfs_iomap_write_direct 232 xfs_cluster_write 216 xfs_probe_cluster 216 xfs_bmap_extents_to_btree ... Not a lot in each case but could be significant as it accumulates. I'm not familiar w/ the gcc stack protector feature; would this be an expected result? Thanks, -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs