On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 6:12 PM Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 5:43 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > In combination with the structleak gcc plugin, kunit can lead to excessive > > stack usage when each assertion adds another structure to the stack from > > of the calling function: > > > > base/test/property-entry-test.c:99:1: error: the frame size of 3032 bytes is larger than 2048 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=] > > > > As most assertions are binary, change those over to a direct function > > call that does not have this problem. This can probably be improved > > further, I just went for a straightforward conversion, but a function > > call with 12 fixed arguments plus varargs it not great either. > > Yeah, I am not exactly excited by maintaining such a set of functions. > > I don't think anyone wants to go with the heap allocation route. > > Along the lines of the union/single copy idea[1]. What if we just put > a union of all the assertion types in the kunit struct? One is already > allocated for every test case and we only need one assertion object > for each test case at a time, so I imagine that sould work. > > I will start messing around with the idea. Still, it sounds like we > are down to either reducing the number of instances of this struct > that get created per test case, or we need to remove it entirely (as > you have done here). > > Cheers Woops forgot to link the original discussion. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/1/13/1166
