From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
esandeen@redhat.com, cebbert@redhat.com,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: Unnecessary overhead with stack protector.
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:24:18 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ADF5FE2.7070604@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4ADF5C6B.80605@redhat.com>
Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
..
> but maybe more to Dave's original point, xfs on x86_64 in my tree had
> 243 functions with minimal stack usage of 8 bytes. w/
> CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL in force, I end up with these sizes for those
> functions:
>
> count bytes
> 3 16
> 236 24
> 1 32
> 5 40
>
> 8->24 bytes is pretty significant too, w/ a 200% increase, if you add a
> few up...
And on top of that (sorry for the self-replies) there are 600+ functions
in xfs that didn't even register a stack footprint at all (i.e. no sub
%rsp in disassembly) w/o stackprotector, which now have 16 or 24 bytes
with it on.
Forgive me if I'm not using the right tools to look, but it seems to me
that in the aggregate, CC_STACKPROTECTOR_ALL has a pretty big impact.
-Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-21 19:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-15 18:35 Unnecessary overhead with stack protector Dave Jones
2009-10-15 19:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-10-21 15:50 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-10-21 18:00 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-10-21 18:59 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-10-21 19:09 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-10-21 19:24 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2009-10-21 21:08 ` Chuck Ebbert
2009-10-21 19:16 ` XFS stack overhead Ingo Molnar
2009-10-21 19:21 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-10-21 20:22 ` Chuck Ebbert
2009-10-22 1:26 ` Unnecessary overhead with stack protector Andrew Morton
2009-10-26 16:30 ` Chuck Ebbert
2009-10-26 16:37 ` Andrew Morton
2009-10-26 16:56 ` Chuck Ebbert
2009-10-26 20:03 ` Ingo Molnar
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=4ADF5FE2.7070604@redhat.com \
--to=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=cebbert@redhat.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=esandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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