Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 9 Jun 2004 18:29:49 +0200 | From | Jörn Engel <> | Subject | Re: [STACK] >3k call path in ide |
| |
On Wed, 9 June 2004 23:23:20 +0800, Michael Clark wrote: > > Noticed that try_to_free_pages, sync_inodes_sb and wakeup_bdflush features > in almost all of these traces and although at 284, 308 and 256 respectively > their not huge but together their neither that small (considering they > occur all in the same stack trace). > > This is consumed mostly by a struct page_state which is 148 bytes big > although looking at the code get_page_state(struct page_state *ret) > only populates the first 6 fields or 24 bytes. get_full_page_state > which is hardly used updates these other fields. > > Is this a candidate for splitting into 2 structs? 1 containing just the > first 6 fields needed by the majority of users: try_to_free_pages, > shrink_all_memory, kswapd, get_dirty_limits, wakeup_bdflush, sync_inodes_sb
Well noticed, although Hugh and Andrew have already exchanged some patches, see http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0406.1/0134.html
For the moment I consider try_to_free_pages() fixed.
Andrew, what do you thing about the patch below for sync_inodes_sb()? It's stack consumption is reduced from 308 to 64, at the cost of one more function call.
Jörn
-- Premature optimization is the root of all evil. -- Donald Knuth
Move a struct page_state into it's own function. This reduces the stack consumption for sync_inodes_sb(), as the stack is already partially rolled back before other functions get called.
Signed-off-by: Jörn Engel <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
fs-writeback.c | 15 ++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
--- linux-2.6.6cow/fs/fs-writeback.c~sync_inodes_sb 2004-06-09 18:19:25.000000000 +0200 +++ linux-2.6.6cow/fs/fs-writeback.c 2004-06-09 18:23:44.000000000 +0200 @@ -396,6 +396,15 @@ spin_unlock(&inode_lock); } +static long get_nr_to_write(void) +{ + struct page_state ps; + + get_page_state(&ps); + return ps.nr_dirty + ps.nr_unstable + ps.nr_dirty + ps.nr_unstable + + (inodes_stat.nr_inodes - inodes_stat.nr_unused); +} + /* * writeback and wait upon the filesystem's dirty inodes. The caller will * do this in two passes - one to write, and one to wait. WB_SYNC_HOLD is @@ -409,7 +418,6 @@ */ void sync_inodes_sb(struct super_block *sb, int wait) { - struct page_state ps; struct writeback_control wbc = { .bdi = NULL, .sync_mode = wait ? WB_SYNC_ALL : WB_SYNC_HOLD, @@ -417,10 +425,7 @@ .nr_to_write = 0, }; - get_page_state(&ps); - wbc.nr_to_write = ps.nr_dirty + ps.nr_unstable + - (inodes_stat.nr_inodes - inodes_stat.nr_unused) + - ps.nr_dirty + ps.nr_unstable; + wbc.nr_to_write = get_nr_to_write(); wbc.nr_to_write += wbc.nr_to_write / 2; /* Bit more for luck */ spin_lock(&inode_lock); sync_sb_inodes(sb, &wbc); - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |