Linus Torvalds wrote:
The downsides of inlining are big enough from both a debugging and a real
code generation angle (eg stack usage like this), that the upsides
(_somesimes_ smaller kernel, possibly slightly faster code) simply aren't
relevant.
So the "noinline" was random, yes, but this is a real issue. Looking at
checkstack output for a saner config (NR_CPUS=16), the top entries for me
are things like
ide_generic_init [vmlinux]: 1384
idefloppy_ioctl [vmlinux]: 1208
e1000_check_options [vmlinux]: 1152
...
which are "leaf" functions. They are broken as hell (the e1000 is
apparently because it builds structs on the stack that should all be
"static const", for example), but they are different from something like
the module init sequence in that they are not going to affect anything
else.
e1000_check_options builds a struct (singular) on the stack, really...
struct e1000_option is reasonably small.
The problem, which has also shown itself in large ioctl-style switch{}
statements, is that gcc will generate code such that the stack usage
from independent code branches
if {cond1} {
char buster1[1000];
foo(buster1);
} else if (cond2) {
char buster2[1000];
foo(buster2);
}
are added together, not noticed as mutually exclusive.
Of course, adding 'static const' as you noted is a reasonable
workaround, but gcc is really annoying WRT stack allocation in this manner.
I had problems in the past, before struct ethtool_ops, with like ethtool
ioctl switch statements using gobs of stack. In fact, that was a big
motivation for struct ethtool_ops.
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
