From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270000AbTGVKFW (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2003 06:05:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270487AbTGVKFW (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2003 06:05:22 -0400 Received: from [213.39.233.138] ([213.39.233.138]:11480 "EHLO wohnheim.fh-wedel.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270688AbTGVKFT (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jul 2003 06:05:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 12:20:14 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: junkio@cox.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Port SquashFS to 2.6 Message-ID: <20030722102014.GC29430@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> References: <7vd6g3uvbc.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <200307220342.h6M3gbgf003555@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200307220342.h6M3gbgf003555@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 21 July 2003 23:42:37 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > Not necessarily. It's quite possible (likely even) that one architecture might > have N bytes overhead per call, and is allowed a 4K stack, and some other > architecture has (N+30%) overhead, so 4K isn't enough - 5K is needed. However, > other considerations cause a whole-page allocation, so instead of allocating > 5K, it goes to 8K, with a 3K wastage.... And even worse, for short call chains, 4.1k would be enough, but for long ones, you need up to 5.2k. How much is too much? We don't know and it depends, so make a pessimistic guess. Joern