[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87fvjs7sge.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 20:38:33 +0930
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: virtio ring cleanups, which save stack on older gcc
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> writes:
> Hello Rusty,
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 04:56:41PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> They don't make much difference: the easier fix is use gcc 4.8
>> which drops stack required across virtio block's virtio_queue_rq
>> down to that kmalloc in virtio_ring from 528 to 392 bytes.
>>
>> Still, these (*lightly tested*) patches reduce to 432 bytes,
>> even for gcc 4.6.4. Posted here FYI.
>
> I am testing with below which was hack for Dave's idea so don't have
> a machine to test your patches until tomorrow.
> So, I will queue your patches into testing machine tomorrow morning.
More interesting would be updating your compiler to 4.8, I think.
Saving <100 bytes on virtio is not going to save you, right?
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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