| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: stack bloat after stackprotector changes |
| From: | Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:53:56 +0900 |
| Cc: | xfs mailing list <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <4ACA5EB0.4010707@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <4ACA5EB0.4010707@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090605) |
Eric Sandeen wrote: > It seems that after: > > commit 5d707e9c8ef2a3596ed5c975c6ff05cec890c2b4 > Author: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon Feb 9 22:17:39 2009 +0900 > > stackprotector: update make rules > > xfs stack usage jumped up a fair bit; > > Not a lot in each case but could be significant as it accumulates. > > I'm not familiar w/ the gcc stack protector feature; would this be an > expected result? Yeah, it adds a bit of stack usage per each function call and around arrays which seem like they could overflow, so the behavior is expected and I can see it can be a problem with function call depth that deep. Has it caused actual stack overflow? Thanks. -- tejun |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim, Patrick Schreurs |
| Previous by Thread: | stack bloat after stackprotector changes, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: stack bloat after stackprotector changes, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |