[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mwduqg09.fsf@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 15:28:22 +0200
From: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] x86_64: expand kernel stack to 16K
Possibly stupid question: Is it true that any given task can only be
using one wait_queue_t at a time? If so, would it be an idea to put a
wait_queue_t into struct task_struct [maybe union'ed with a struct
wait_bit_queue] and avoid allocating this 40 byte structure repeatedly
on the stack.
E.g., in one of Minchan's stack traces, there are two calls of
mempool_alloc (which itself declares a wait_queue_t) and one
try_to_free_pages (which is the only caller of throttle_direct_reclaim,
which in turn uses wait_event_interruptible_timeout and
wait_event_killable).
Rasmus
--
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