Messages in this thread | | | From | Denys Vlasenko <> | Subject | Re: x86: 4kstacks default | Date | Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:02:01 +0200 |
| |
On Sunday 27 April 2008 21:27, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Tue, 22 April 2008 11:28:19 +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 09:51:02PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > > > > Why xfs code is said to be 5 times bigger than e.g. reiserfs? > > > Does it have to be that big? > > > > If we cut the bulkstat code out, the handle interface, the > > preallocation, the journalled quota, the delayed allocation, all the > > runtime validation, the shutdown code, the debug code, the tracing > > code, etc, then we might get down to the same size reiser.... > > Just noticed this bit of FUD. Last time I did some static analysis on > stack usage, reiserfs alone would blow away 3k, while xfs was somewhere > below.
I'm sorry, but it's not what I said. I didn't say reiserfs eats less stack. I don't know. I said it is smaller.
reiserfs/* 821474 bytes xfs/* 3019689 bytes -- vda -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |