From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758915AbYDVMtP (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:49:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753399AbYDVMtA (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:49:00 -0400 Received: from hu-out-0506.google.com ([72.14.214.224]:31362 "EHLO hu-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753396AbYDVMs6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:48:58 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=ppSWG8s5z3+epkAJX0m7wm9o+YTm03sVLc45bRJhyzXhvE4QgiDKsTJ0Q4iFkR+4IR0WsP++XPhbpTnwZ5A24wuP6t0D0LED3a4vrJVKkDhOGJPhz2Ss60ywUObtmGXHKJwTreBaYP6aDfOiZZr6vxVP4H5t3BhekgiHN7jiQD4= From: Denys Vlasenko To: David Chinner Subject: Re: x86: 4kstacks default Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:48:09 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 Cc: Eric Sandeen , Adrian Bunk , Alan Cox , Shawn Bohrer , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Arjan van de Ven , Thomas Gleixner References: <20080419142329.GA5339@elte.hu> <200804212151.02241.vda.linux@googlemail.com> <20080422012819.GT108924158@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20080422012819.GT108924158@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804221448.09828.vda.linux@googlemail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 22 April 2008 03:28, David Chinner wrote: > We've already chopped off the low hanging fruit, added noinline to > every function definition to prevent compiler heuristics from > blowing out stack usage by 25% and reduced use of temporary > variables as much as possible. There's very little fat left to trim, > and still we can't reliably fit in 4k stacks. At yet, I got four screenfuls of fs/xfs/XXXXX.c: warning: unused parameter 'foo' when I added -Wunused_parameter to Makefile. Clearly there is some room for improvement. > Patches are welcome - I'd be over the moon if any of the known 4k > stack advocates sent a stack reduction patch for XFS, but it seems > that actually trying to fix the problems is much harder than > resending a one line patch every few months.... Sent a few. I would like to ask you to ACK/NAK every individual patch in some reasonable period of time, say, 1-3 days. If you NAK a patch, please let me know what is wrong with it. I am not eager at all to experience a repeat of aic7xxx patch saga, when I was not getting any meaningful reply for months. Best regards, Denys. -- vda