[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100415154442.GG10966@csn.ul.ie>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:44:42 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] vmscan: simplify shrink_inactive_list()
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 05:01:36PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> writes:
> >
> > $ stack-o-meter vmlinux-vanilla vmlinux-2-simplfy-shrink
> > add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/2 up/down: 0/-144 (-144)
> > function old new delta
> > shrink_zone 1232 1160 -72
> > kswapd 748 676 -72
>
> And the next time someone adds a new feature to these code paths or
> the compiler inlines differently these 72 bytes are easily there
> again. It's not really a long term solution. Code is tending to get
> more complicated all the time. I consider it unlikely this trend will
> stop any time soon.
>
The same logic applies when/if page writeback is split so that it is
handled by a separate thread.
> So just doing some stack micro optimizations doesn't really help
> all that much.
>
It's a buying-time venture, I'll agree but as both approaches are only
about reducing stack stack they wouldn't be long-term solutions by your
criteria. What do you suggest?
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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