Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:18:44 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: Large stack usage in fs code (especially for PPC64) |
| |
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > Here's my stack after boot up with CONFIG_IRQSTACKS set. Seems that > softirqs still use the same stack as the process.
Yes.
> This is still 12K. Kind of big even for a 16K stack.
And while that 1kB+ stack slot for block_read_full_page still stands out like a sore thumb, I do agree that there's way too many other functions too with big stack frames.
I do wonder just _what_ it is that causes the stack frames to be so horrid. For example, you have
18) 8896 160 .kmem_cache_alloc+0xfc/0x140
and I'm looking at my x86-64 compile, and it has a stack frame of just 8 bytes (!) for local variables plus the save/restore area (which looks like three registers plus frame pointer plus return address). IOW, if I'm looking at the code right (so big caveat: I did _not_ do a real stack dump!) the x86-64 stack cost for that same function is on the order of 48 bytes. Not 160.
Where does that factor-of-three+ difference come from? From the numbers, I suspect ppc64 has a 32-byte stack alignment, which may be part of it, and I guess the compiler is more eager to use all those extra registers and will happily have many more callee-saved regs that are actually used.
But that still a _lot_ of extra stack.
Of course, you may have things like spinlock debugging etc enabled. Some of our debugging options do tend to blow things up.
Linus
| |