linux-kernel - Re: Large stack usage in fs code (especially for PPC64)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:17:04 +1100
From:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	paulus@...ba.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	tglx@...utronix.de, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: Large stack usage in fs code (especially for PPC64)


> I'd have thought so, but I'm sure we're about to hear how important an
> optimisation the smaller stacks are ;)

Not sure, I tend to agree that it would make sense to bump our stack to
64K on 64K pages, it's not like we are saving anything and we are
probably adding overhead in alloc/dealloc. I'll see what Paul thinks
here.

> 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.

Amen.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
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/