Messages in this thread | | | From | Denys Vlasenko <> | Subject | Re: x86: 4kstacks default | Date | Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:00:20 +0200 |
| |
On Monday 28 April 2008 01:08, Eric Sandeen 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 > > FWIW, the reason for that is in large part all the features Dave listed > above, and probably more. > > And, while certainly not yet tiny, the recent trend actually is that xfs > is getting a bit smaller: > > http://oss.sgi.com/~sandeen/xfs-linedata.png
~30% line count reduction? Impressive, especially in this age of creeping bloat. Thanks. -- vda
| |