On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:54 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 01:59:45PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:40:41 +1000
>>> > Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > 50) 3168 64 xfs_vm_writepage+0xab/0x160 [xfs]
>>> > > 51) 3104 384 shrink_page_list+0x65e/0x840
>>> > > 52) 2720 528 shrink_zone+0x63f/0xe10
>>> >
>>> > A bit OFF TOPIC.
>>> >
>>> > Could you share disassemble of shrink_zone() ?
>>> >
>>> > In my environ.
>>> > 00000000000115a0 <shrink_zone>:
>>> > 115a0: 55 push %rbp
>>> > 115a1: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
>>> > 115a4: 41 57 push %r15
>>> > 115a6: 41 56 push %r14
>>> > 115a8: 41 55 push %r13
>>> > 115aa: 41 54 push %r12
>>> > 115ac: 53 push %rbx
>>> > 115ad: 48 83 ec 78 sub $0x78,%rsp
>>> > 115b1: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 115b6 <shrink_zone+0x16>
>>> > 115b6: 48 89 75 80 mov %rsi,-0x80(%rbp)
>>> >
>>> > disassemble seems to show 0x78 bytes for stack. And no changes to %rsp
>>> > until retrun.
>>>
>>> I see the same. I didn't compile those kernels, though. IIUC,
>>> they were built through the Ubuntu build infrastructure, so there is
>>> something different in terms of compiler, compiler options or config
>>> to what we are both using. Most likely it is the compiler inlining,
>>> though Chris's patches to prevent that didn't seem to change the
>>> stack usage.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to get a stack trace from the kernel that has shrink_zone
>>> in it, but I haven't succeeded yet....
>>
>> I also got 0x78 byte stack usage. Umm.. Do we discussed real issue now?
>>
>
> In my case, 0x110 byte in 32 bit machine.
> I think it's possible in 64 bit machine.
>
> 00001830 <shrink_zone>:
> 1830: 55 push %ebp
> 1831: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
> 1833: 57 push %edi
> 1834: 56 push %esi
> 1835: 53 push %ebx
> 1836: 81 ec 10 01 00 00 sub $0x110,%esp
> 183c: 89 85 24 ff ff ff mov %eax,-0xdc(%ebp)
> 1842: 89 95 20 ff ff ff mov %edx,-0xe0(%ebp)
> 1848: 89 8d 1c ff ff ff mov %ecx,-0xe4(%ebp)
> 184e: 8b 41 04 mov 0x4(%ecx)
>
> my gcc is following as.
>
> barrios@barriostarget:~/mmotm$ gcc -v
> Using built-in specs.
> Target: i486-linux-gnu
> Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu
> 4.3.3-5ubuntu4'
> --with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.3/README.Bugs
> --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr
> --enable-shared --with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib
> --without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --enable-nls
> --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.3 --program-suffix=-4.3
> --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-objc-gc
> --enable-mpfr --enable-targets=all --with-tune=generic
> --enable-checking=release --build=i486-linux-gnu --host=i486-linux-gnu
> --target=i486-linux-gnu
> Thread model: posix
> gcc version 4.3.3 (Ubuntu 4.3.3-5ubuntu4)
>
>
> Is it depends on config?
> I attach my config.
I changed shrink list by noinline_for_stack.
The result is following as.
00001fe0 <shrink_zone>:
1fe0: 55 push %ebp
1fe1: 89 e5 mov %esp,%ebp
1fe3: 57 push %edi
1fe4: 56 push %esi
1fe5: 53 push %ebx
1fe6: 83 ec 4c sub $0x4c,%esp
1fe9: 89 45 c0 mov %eax,-0x40(%ebp)
1fec: 89 55 bc mov %edx,-0x44(%ebp)
1fef: 89 4d b8 mov %ecx,-0x48(%ebp)
0x110 -> 0x4c.
Should we have to add noinline_for_stack for shrink_list?
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href