[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200804280102.01964.vda.linux@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:02:01 +0200
From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@....com>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: x86: 4kstacks default
On Sunday 27 April 2008 21:27, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Tue, 22 April 2008 11:28:19 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 09:51:02PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> >
> > > Why xfs code is said to be 5 times bigger than e.g. reiserfs?
> > > Does it have to be that big?
> >
> > If we cut the bulkstat code out, the handle interface, the
> > preallocation, the journalled quota, the delayed allocation, all the
> > runtime validation, the shutdown code, the debug code, the tracing
> > code, etc, then we might get down to the same size reiser....
>
> Just noticed this bit of FUD. Last time I did some static analysis on
> stack usage, reiserfs alone would blow away 3k, while xfs was somewhere
> below.
I'm sorry, but it's not what I said.
I didn't say reiserfs eats less stack. I don't know.
I said it is smaller.
reiserfs/* 821474 bytes
xfs/* 3019689 bytes
--
vda
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists