[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1003061818530.4033@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 18:24:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Andrew <nick@...k-andrew.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsprintf.c: Reduce sizeof struct printf_spec from 24 to
8 bytes
On Sat, 6 Mar 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> the 'pointer()' function has a 200+ byte stack footprint on x86-64. And
> vsnprintf itself is about 100+ bytes. So that stack depth is way bigger
> than I would have expected.
>
> I'm not sure _why_ that stack footprint for 'pointer()' is so big, but I
> bet it's due to some simple inlining, and gcc (once more) sucking at it
> and not being able to combine stack frames. It's a damn shame.
Yeah, a few noinline's gets 'pointer()' to just save registers on the
stack, no need for any extra buffers (which then is ok for your recursion
case - the other subfunctions it can call have their own buffers, of
course, but they won't be in the recursive call-path except at the leaf.
vsnprintf() itself seems less obviously fixable. I'm not sure wht gcc
decides it needs 88 bytes of temp-space there.
Linus
--
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