From: "Jörn Engel" <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
To: "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>,
kraxel@bytesex.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: reducing stack usage in v4l?
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:40:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030305214017.GA25225@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030305073437.0673458e.rddunlap@osdl.org>
On Wed, 5 March 2003 07:34:37 -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> | On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:15:52AM +0100, Gerd Knorr wrote:
>
> | > Not sure what is the best idea to fix that. Don't like the kmalloc
> | > idea that much. The individual structs are not huge, the real problem
> | > is that many of them are allocated and only few are needed. Any
> | > chance to tell gcc that it should allocate block-local variables at
> | > the start block not at the start of the function?
> |
> | Not a particularly clean idea, but maybe creating a union of the
> | structures and putting that on the stack? (ie, doing what GCC should
> | be doing in the first place.)
>
> That's an idea. Or make separate called functions for each ioctl and declare
> the structures inside them?
As far as I have seen, at least ds_ioctl uses the union trick. And the
three marked (*) ioctl-functions appear to be suffering from the same
gcc inability.
How much complaining is necessary for the gcc folks to worry about
this?
0xc0ad420b <snd_emu10k1_fx8010_ioctl+3/5ec>: sub $0x814,%esp
0xc06dbd77 <v4l_compat_translate_ioctl+3/159c>: sub $0x804,%esp
0xc0521e43 <ida_ioctl+3/388>: sub $0x528,%esp
* 0xc01ed733 <presto_ioctl+3/13c4>: sub $0x4d0,%esp
* 0xc0bfbfd3 <br_ioctl_device+3/454>: sub $0x474,%esp
0xc07968bb <megadev_ioctl+3/c94>: sub $0x394,%esp
* 0xc068ff5b <ray_dev_ioctl+3/8b8>: sub $0x2e0,%esp
0xc0583a63 <netdev_ethtool_ioctl+3/e64>: sub $0x2c8,%esp
0xc0865963 <ds_ioctl+3/6b0>: sub $0x2ac,%esp
0xc04370c3 <vt_ioctl+3/1a84>: sub $0x29c,%esp
0xc054c5eb <e1000_ethtool_ioctl+3/6f8>: sub $0x290,%esp
0xc0299b23 <ncp_ioctl+3/13b0>: sub $0x278,%esp
0xc0532e67 <DAC960_UserIOCTL+3/17c0>: sub $0x230,%esp
Jörn
--
Optimizations always bust things, because all optimizations are, in
the long haul, a form of cheating, and cheaters eventually get caught.
-- Larry Wall
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-03-05 21:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-03-05 5:25 Randy.Dunlap
2003-03-05 5:43 ` Andrew Morton
2003-03-05 9:15 ` Gerd Knorr
2003-03-05 9:35 ` Russell King
2003-03-05 15:34 ` Randy.Dunlap
2003-03-05 21:40 ` Jörn Engel [this message]
2003-03-11 4:27 ` Randy.Dunlap
2003-03-11 9:19 ` Gerd Knorr
2003-03-11 16:29 ` Alan Cox
2003-03-11 15:36 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-03-05 11:50 ` mdew
2003-03-05 12:28 ` Gerd Knorr
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030305214017.GA25225@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de \
--to=joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de \
--cc=kraxel@bytesex.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rddunlap@osdl.org \
--cc=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®