[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: x86: 4kstacks default
On Sunday 27 April 2008 21:27, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Tue, 22 April 2008 11:28:19 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 09:51:02PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> >
> > > Why xfs code is said to be 5 times bigger than e.g. reiserfs?
> > > Does it have to be that big?
> >
> > If we cut the bulkstat code out, the handle interface, the
> > preallocation, the journalled quota, the delayed allocation, all the
> > runtime validation, the shutdown code, the debug code, the tracing
> > code, etc, then we might get down to the same size reiser....
> Just noticed this bit of FUD. Last time I did some static analysis on
> stack usage, reiserfs alone would blow away 3k, while xfs was somewhere
> below.

I'm sorry, but it's not what I said.
I didn't say reiserfs eats less stack. I don't know.
I said it is smaller.

reiserfs/* 821474 bytes
xfs/* 3019689 bytes
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-28 01:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site