Peter Zijlstra writes:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 02:29:17PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> This is an attempt to reduce the stack footprint of various functions
>> (those using any of the wait_event_* macros), by removing the need to
>> allocate a wait_queue_t on the stack and instead use a
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org writes:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 02:29:17PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
This is an attempt to reduce the stack footprint of various functions
(those using any of the wait_event_* macros), by removing the need to
allocate a wait_queue_t on the stack and
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 02:29:17PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> This is an attempt to reduce the stack footprint of various functions
> (those using any of the wait_event_* macros), by removing the need to
> allocate a wait_queue_t on the stack and instead use a single instance
> embedded in
This is an attempt to reduce the stack footprint of various functions
(those using any of the wait_event_* macros), by removing the need to
allocate a wait_queue_t on the stack and instead use a single instance
embedded in task_struct. I'm not really sure where the best place to
put it is; I just
This is an attempt to reduce the stack footprint of various functions
(those using any of the wait_event_* macros), by removing the need to
allocate a wait_queue_t on the stack and instead use a single instance
embedded in task_struct. I'm not really sure where the best place to
put it is; I just
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 02:29:17PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
This is an attempt to reduce the stack footprint of various functions
(those using any of the wait_event_* macros), by removing the need to
allocate a wait_queue_t on the stack and instead use a single instance
embedded in
6 matches
Mail list logo
