From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
paulus@samba.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org,
linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: Large stack usage in fs code (especially for PPC64)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:42:35 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811171337400.18283@nehalem.linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081117133137.616cf287.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Yup. That being said, the younger me did assert that "this is a neater
> implementation anyway". If we can implement those loops without
> needing those on-stack temporary arrays then things probably are better
> overall.
Sure, if it actually ends up being nicer, I'll not argue with it. But from
an L1 I$ standpoint (and I$ is often very important, especially for kernel
loads where loops are fairly rare), it's often _much_ better to do two
"tight" loops over two subsystems (filesystem and block layer) than it is
to do one bigger loop that contains both. If the L1 can fit both subsystem
paths, you're fine - but if not, you may get a lot more misses.
So it's often nice if you can "stage" things so that you do a cluster of
calls to one area, followed by a cluster of calls to another, rather than
mix it up.
But numbers talk. And code cleanliness. If somebody has numbers that the
code size actually goes down for example, or the code is just more
readable, micro-optimizing cache patterns isn't worth it.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-17 21:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <alpine.DEB.1.10.0811171508300.8722@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
2008-11-17 21:08 ` Andrew Morton
2008-11-17 21:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-11-17 21:31 ` Andrew Morton
2008-11-17 21:42 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2008-11-17 23:17 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
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=alpine.LFD.2.00.0811171337400.18283@nehalem.linux-foundation.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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