public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
	David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>,
	Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>,
	Andrea Gelmini <andrea.gelmini@gelma.net>,
	Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>, Liu Bo <bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com>,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: reduce stack usage for btrfsic_process_written_block
Date: Mon,  8 Jul 2019 14:40:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190708124019.3374246-1-arnd@arndb.de> (raw)

btrfsic_process_written_block() cals btrfsic_process_metablock(),
which has a fairly large stack usage due to the btrfsic_stack_frame
variable. It also calls btrfsic_test_for_metadata(), which now
needs several hundreds of bytes for its SHASH_DESC_ON_STACK().

In some configurations, we end up with both functions on the
same stack, and gcc warns about the excessive stack usage that
might cause the available stack space to run out:

fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c:1743:13: error: stack frame size of 1152 bytes in function 'btrfsic_process_written_block' [-Werror,-Wframe-larger-than=]

Marking both child functions as noinline_for_stack helps because
this guarantees that the large variables are not on the same
stack frame.

Fixes: d5178578bcd4 ("btrfs: directly call into crypto framework for checksumming")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
 fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c | 7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
index 81a9731959a9..0b52ab4cb964 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/check-integrity.c
@@ -940,7 +940,7 @@ static void btrfsic_stack_frame_free(struct btrfsic_stack_frame *sf)
 	kfree(sf);
 }
 
-static int btrfsic_process_metablock(
+static noinline_for_stack int btrfsic_process_metablock(
 		struct btrfsic_state *state,
 		struct btrfsic_block *const first_block,
 		struct btrfsic_block_data_ctx *const first_block_ctx,
@@ -1706,8 +1706,9 @@ static void btrfsic_dump_database(struct btrfsic_state *state)
  * Test whether the disk block contains a tree block (leaf or node)
  * (note that this test fails for the super block)
  */
-static int btrfsic_test_for_metadata(struct btrfsic_state *state,
-				     char **datav, unsigned int num_pages)
+static noinline_for_stack int btrfsic_test_for_metadata(
+		struct btrfsic_state *state,
+		char **datav, unsigned int num_pages)
 {
 	struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = state->fs_info;
 	SHASH_DESC_ON_STACK(shash, fs_info->csum_shash);
-- 
2.20.0


             reply	other threads:[~2019-07-08 12:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-08 12:40 Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2019-07-08 12:47 ` [PATCH] btrfs: reduce stack usage for btrfsic_process_written_block Johannes Thumshirn
2019-07-24 14:57 ` David Sterba

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=20190708124019.3374246-1-arnd@arndb.de \
    --to=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=andrea.gelmini@gelma.net \
    --cc=bo.liu@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=clm@fb.com \
    --cc=dsterba@suse.com \
    --cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
    --cc=jthumshirn@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nborisov@suse.com \
    --cc=wqu@suse.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox