From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[140.211.169.13])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "smtp.linux-foundation.org",
	Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK))
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5A73DDE0E
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:32:51 +1100 (EST)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:31:37 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Large stack usage in fs code (especially for PPC64)
Message-Id: <20081117133137.616cf287.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811171320330.18283@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
References: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0811171508300.8722@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
	<20081117130856.92e41cd3.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<alpine.LFD.2.00.0811171320330.18283@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
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
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

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.