On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:19:02 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? > Hmm. about shirnk_zone(), I don't think uninlining functions directly called by shrink_zone() can be a help. Total stack size of call-chain will be still big. Thanks, -Kame -- 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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>