* Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Or am I missing some complication?
>
> Seems like a great idea to me.
>
> BTW, what the heck is up with get_gate_page()? I'm struggling to
> understand what it's even trying to do. If there's an architecture
> that allows a user program to mremap() or otherwise
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 4:13 AM Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>
> * Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > > Saving 2KB on a defconfig is quite a lot.
> >
> > Saving 2kB of text by adding 8 bytes to thread_info seems rather
> > dubious to me. You only need 256 tasks before you lose. My
> >
* Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Saving 2KB on a defconfig is quite a lot.
>
> Saving 2kB of text by adding 8 bytes to thread_info seems rather
> dubious to me. You only need 256 tasks before you lose. My
> not-particularly-loaded laptop has 865 tasks right now.
I was suggesting
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 3:09 PM Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 07:30:40AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 22, 2019, at 3:34 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > * Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > >
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/task_size_64.c
> > > @@
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 9:06 AM Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
> TASK_SIZE macro is quite deceptive: it looks like a constant but in fact
> compiles to 50+ bytes.
Honestly, if you are interested in improving TASK_SIZE, I'd really
like to see you try to go even further than this.
TASK_SIZE _used_ to
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 07:30:40AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 2019, at 3:34 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >
> > * Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> >
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/task_size_64.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> > +#include
> > +#include
> > +#include
>
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:34:49PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> When set_personality_ia32() is called then TIF_ADDR32 is set
> unconditionally, without any Kconfig variations.
Indeed.
personality(PER_LINUX32) = 0 (PER_LINUX)
I only wasted about half an evening ifdefing TIF_ flags.
> On Apr 22, 2019, at 3:34 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>
> * Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/task_size_64.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> +#include
> +#include
> +#include
> +
> +unsigned long _task_size(void)
> +{
> +return
* Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/task_size_64.c
> > >> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> > >> +#include
> > >> +#include
> > >> +#include
> > >> +
> > >> +unsigned long _task_size(void)
> > >> +{
> > >> +return test_thread_flag(TIF_ADDR32) ? IA32_PAGE_OFFSET :
> >
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 01:07:08PM -0700, h...@zytor.com wrote:
> On April 21, 2019 11:28:42 AM PDT, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >* Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> >
> >> TASK_SIZE macro is quite deceptive: it looks like a constant but in
> >fact
> >> compiles to 50+ bytes.
> >>
> >> Space savings on
On April 21, 2019 11:28:42 AM PDT, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>* Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
>> TASK_SIZE macro is quite deceptive: it looks like a constant but in
>fact
>> compiles to 50+ bytes.
>>
>> Space savings on x86_64 defconfig:
>>
>> add/remove: 1/0 grow/shrink: 3/24 up/down: 77/-2247 (-2170)
* Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> TASK_SIZE macro is quite deceptive: it looks like a constant but in fact
> compiles to 50+ bytes.
>
> Space savings on x86_64 defconfig:
>
> add/remove: 1/0 grow/shrink: 3/24 up/down: 77/-2247 (-2170)
> Function old new
TASK_SIZE macro is quite deceptive: it looks like a constant but in fact
compiles to 50+ bytes.
Space savings on x86_64 defconfig:
add/remove: 1/0 grow/shrink: 3/24 up/down: 77/-2247 (-2170)
Function old new delta
_task_size
13 matches
Mail list logo
