netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/8] [NET]: uninline dev_alloc

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802201730240.26109@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date:	Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:30:43 +0100 (CET)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
cc:	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/8] [NET]: uninline dev_alloc_skb, de-bloats a lot


On Feb 20 2008 17:27, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> Striking. How can this even happen? A callsite which calls
>> 
>>  dev_alloc_skb(n)
>> 
>> is just equivalent to
>> 
>>  __dev_alloc_skb(n, GFP_ATOMIC);
>> 
>> which means there's like 4 (or 8 if it's long) bytes more on the
>> stack. For a worst case, count in another 8 bytes for push and pop or mov on
>> the stack. But that still does not add up to 23 kb.
>
> __dev_alloc_skb() is also an inline function which performs
> some extra work. Which raises the question - if dev_alloc_skb()
> is uninlined, shouldn't __dev_alloc_skb() be uninline as well?
>
I'd like to see the results when {__dev_alloc_skb is externed
and dev_alloc_skb remains inlined}.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html