On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > So maybe I'm old-fashioned and crazy, but "readability of the asm result"
> > actually is a worthwhile goal. Not because we care directly, but because
> > I'd like to encourage people to do it, due to the *indirect* benefits.
>
> This would
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:48:13PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > > But do we
> > > care so much that it's worth inlining something like buffered_rmqueue()?
> > >...
> >
> > Where is the problem with having buffered_rmqueue() inlined?
>
>
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:48:13PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
But do we
care so much that it's worth inlining something like buffered_rmqueue()?
...
Where is the problem with having buffered_rmqueue() inlined?
In this case, it was
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
So maybe I'm old-fashioned and crazy, but readability of the asm result
actually is a worthwhile goal. Not because we care directly, but because
I'd like to encourage people to do it, due to the *indirect* benefits.
This would lead to people
[Alexey Dobriyan - Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 12:05:28AM +0400]
| On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 11:25:22AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
| > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
| > > I guess this was the bug:
| >
| > Looks very likely to me. Mike, Alexey, does this fix things for you?
|
| Yeah, box is
[Alexey Dobriyan - Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 12:05:28AM +0400]
| On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 11:25:22AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
| On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
| I guess this was the bug:
|
| Looks very likely to me. Mike, Alexey, does this fix things for you?
|
| Yeah, box is
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 11:25 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > I guess this was the bug:
>
> Looks very likely to me. Mike, Alexey, does this fix things for you?
I don't have very much runtime on it yet, but yes, it seems to have.
-Mike
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 11:25:22AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I guess this was the bug:
>
> Looks very likely to me. Mike, Alexey, does this fix things for you?
Yeah, box is running for more than hour, survived LTP, gdb testsuite,
portage sync and
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > But do we
> > care so much that it's worth inlining something like buffered_rmqueue()?
> >...
>
> Where is the problem with having buffered_rmqueue() inlined?
In this case, it was a pain to just even try to find the call chain, or
read the asm.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> There's probably a --param where it can be tweaked exactly. The
> problem is that --params tend to be very gcc version specific
> and might do something completely different on a newer or
> older version. So it's better not to use them.
I agree
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:15:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > fwiw, -fno-inline-functions-called-once (who knew?) takes i386 allnoconfig
> > vmlinux .text from 928360 up to 955362 bytes (27k larger).
> >
> > A surprisingly large
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> So "called once" should probably make the inlining weight bigger (ie
> inline *larger* functions than you would otherwise), it just shouldn't
> make it "infinite". It's not worth it.
There's probably a --param where it can be tweaked exactly. The
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> fwiw, -fno-inline-functions-called-once (who knew?) takes i386 allnoconfig
> vmlinux .text from 928360 up to 955362 bytes (27k larger).
>
> A surprisingly large increase - I wonder if it did something dumb. It
> appears to still correctly inline
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > buffered_rmqueue() and prep_new_page() are static functions with only
> > one caller each, and for the normal non-debug case it's a really nice
> >
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> I guess this was the bug:
Looks very likely to me. Mike, Alexey, does this fix things for you?
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> buffered_rmqueue() and prep_new_page() are static functions with only
> one caller each, and for the normal non-debug case it's a really nice
> optimization to have them inlined automatically.
I'm not at all sure I agree.
Inlining big functions
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 02:28:11PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > It'd be nice to get a clean trace. Are you able to obtain the full
> > trace with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y?
>
> If you are talking about
>
>
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:01:09 +0200 Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > You're using DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but I was not, so I think we can rule that
> > out.
>
> My box bugged during boot the first time I booted 23-rc1, but
On 7/24/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> What about the new async crypto stuff? I've been looking, but is it
> guarenteed that async_memcpy() runs in process context with interrupts
> enabled always? If not, there's a km type bug there.
I think Shannon maintains that now.
On 7/24/07, Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about the new async crypto stuff? I've been looking, but is it
guarenteed that async_memcpy() runs in process context with interrupts
enabled always? If not, there's a km type bug there.
Currently the only user is the MD raid456 driver,
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 12:01 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > You're using DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but I was not, so I think we can rule that
> > out.
>
> My box bugged during boot the first time I booted 23-rc1, but nothing
> made it to the
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> You're using DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but I was not, so I think we can rule that out.
My box bugged during boot the first time I booted 23-rc1, but nothing
made it to the console, and I didn't have a serial console running. I
didn't have
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:22:07 +0200 Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > I worked out that the crash I saw was in
> > >
> > > BUG_ON(!pte_none(*(kmap_pte-idx)));
> > >
> > > in the read of
On Tue, Jul 24 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I worked out that the crash I saw was in
> >
> > BUG_ON(!pte_none(*(kmap_pte-idx)));
> >
> > in the read of kmap_pte[idx]. Which would be weird as the caller is using
> > a literal KM_USER0.
> >
> >
On Mon, Jul 23 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I worked out that the crash I saw was in
>
> BUG_ON(!pte_none(*(kmap_pte-idx)));
>
> in the read of kmap_pte[idx]. Which would be weird as the caller is using
> a literal KM_USER0.
>
> So maybe I goofed, and that BUG_ON is triggering (it
On Mon, Jul 23 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
I worked out that the crash I saw was in
BUG_ON(!pte_none(*(kmap_pte-idx)));
in the read of kmap_pte[idx]. Which would be weird as the caller is using
a literal KM_USER0.
So maybe I goofed, and that BUG_ON is triggering (it scrolled
On Tue, Jul 24 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
I worked out that the crash I saw was in
BUG_ON(!pte_none(*(kmap_pte-idx)));
in the read of kmap_pte[idx]. Which would be weird as the caller is using
a literal KM_USER0.
So maybe I
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:22:07 +0200 Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
I worked out that the crash I saw was in
BUG_ON(!pte_none(*(kmap_pte-idx)));
in the read of kmap_pte[idx]. Which
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
You're using DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but I was not, so I think we can rule that out.
My box bugged during boot the first time I booted 23-rc1, but nothing
made it to the console, and I didn't have a serial console running. I
didn't have
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 12:01 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
You're using DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but I was not, so I think we can rule that
out.
My box bugged during boot the first time I booted 23-rc1, but nothing
made it to the console,
On 7/24/07, Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about the new async crypto stuff? I've been looking, but is it
guarenteed that async_memcpy() runs in process context with interrupts
enabled always? If not, there's a km type bug there.
Currently the only user is the MD raid456 driver, and
On 7/24/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
What about the new async crypto stuff? I've been looking, but is it
guarenteed that async_memcpy() runs in process context with interrupts
enabled always? If not, there's a km type bug there.
I think Shannon maintains that now.
I am
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:01:09 +0200 Mike Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 13:24 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
You're using DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but I was not, so I think we can rule that
out.
My box bugged during boot the first time I booted 23-rc1, but nothing
made
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 02:28:11PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
It'd be nice to get a clean trace. Are you able to obtain the full
trace with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y?
If you are talking about
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
buffered_rmqueue() and prep_new_page() are static functions with only
one caller each, and for the normal non-debug case it's a really nice
optimization to have them inlined automatically.
I'm not at all sure I agree.
Inlining big functions
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
I guess this was the bug:
Looks very likely to me. Mike, Alexey, does this fix things for you?
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
buffered_rmqueue() and prep_new_page() are static functions with only
one caller each, and for the normal non-debug case it's a really nice
optimization to have
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
fwiw, -fno-inline-functions-called-once (who knew?) takes i386 allnoconfig
vmlinux .text from 928360 up to 955362 bytes (27k larger).
A surprisingly large increase - I wonder if it did something dumb. It
appears to still correctly inline those
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So called once should probably make the inlining weight bigger (ie
inline *larger* functions than you would otherwise), it just shouldn't
make it infinite. It's not worth it.
There's probably a --param where it can be tweaked exactly. The
problem is
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:15:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
fwiw, -fno-inline-functions-called-once (who knew?) takes i386 allnoconfig
vmlinux .text from 928360 up to 955362 bytes (27k larger).
A surprisingly large increase - I wonder
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
There's probably a --param where it can be tweaked exactly. The
problem is that --params tend to be very gcc version specific
and might do something completely different on a newer or
older version. So it's better not to use them.
I agree
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
But do we
care so much that it's worth inlining something like buffered_rmqueue()?
...
Where is the problem with having buffered_rmqueue() inlined?
In this case, it was a pain to just even try to find the call chain, or
read the asm.
I would
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 11:25:22AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
I guess this was the bug:
Looks very likely to me. Mike, Alexey, does this fix things for you?
Yeah, box is running for more than hour, survived LTP, gdb testsuite,
portage sync and so
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 11:25 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
I guess this was the bug:
Looks very likely to me. Mike, Alexey, does this fix things for you?
I don't have very much runtime on it yet, but yes, it seems to have.
-Mike
-
To
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 03:27:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:04:46 +0400
> Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 02:11:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:01:53 +0400
> > > Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:04:46 +0400
Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 02:11:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:01:53 +0400
> > Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:40:45AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 02:11:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:01:53 +0400
> Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:40:45AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > > I had more complete info:
> > > >
>
> For example, missing from the call graph is
>
> get_page_from_freelist ->
> buffered_rmqueue -> [ missing - inlined ]
> prep_new_page ->[ missing - inlined ]
> prep_zero_page -> [ missing - inlined ]
>
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> It'd be nice to get a clean trace. Are you able to obtain the full
> trace with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y?
If you are talking about
http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/dsc03659.jpg
then I think that _is_ a full trace. It's certainly not very
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:01:53 +0400
Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:40:45AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > I had more complete info:
> > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/66966
> > >
> > > You're using DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but I was not, so I
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:40:45AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > I had more complete info: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/66966
> >
> > You're using DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but I was not, so I think we can rule that
> > out.
> >
> > I haven't worked out where that kmap_atomic() call
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 01:24:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:01:52 +0400
> Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:38:39PM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > Managed to hit BUG_ON() in kmap_atomic_prot() three times while doing
> > >
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:01:52 +0400
Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:38:39PM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > Managed to hit BUG_ON() in kmap_atomic_prot() three times while doing
> > nothing unusual for this box (two times it was under X, so I can't
> >
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:38:39PM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> Managed to hit BUG_ON() in kmap_atomic_prot() three times while doing
> nothing unusual for this box (two times it was under X, so I can't
> guarantee, one time while trying to reproduce via ./configure in gdb
> tarball)
>
> Box
Managed to hit BUG_ON() in kmap_atomic_prot() three times while doing
nothing unusual for this box (two times it was under X, so I can't
guarantee, one time while trying to reproduce via ./configure in gdb
tarball)
Box has 2.5G of RAM. 2.6.22 was OK.
[dives into framebuffer console setup for
Managed to hit BUG_ON() in kmap_atomic_prot() three times while doing
nothing unusual for this box (two times it was under X, so I can't
guarantee, one time while trying to reproduce via ./configure in gdb
tarball)
Box has 2.5G of RAM. 2.6.22 was OK.
[dives into framebuffer console setup for
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:38:39PM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
Managed to hit BUG_ON() in kmap_atomic_prot() three times while doing
nothing unusual for this box (two times it was under X, so I can't
guarantee, one time while trying to reproduce via ./configure in gdb
tarball)
Box has
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:01:52 +0400
Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:38:39PM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
Managed to hit BUG_ON() in kmap_atomic_prot() three times while doing
nothing unusual for this box (two times it was under X, so I can't
guarantee,
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 01:24:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:01:52 +0400
Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:38:39PM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
Managed to hit BUG_ON() in kmap_atomic_prot() three times while doing
nothing
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:40:45AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
I had more complete info: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/66966
You're using DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but I was not, so I think we can rule that
out.
I haven't worked out where that kmap_atomic() call is coming
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:01:53 +0400
Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:40:45AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
I had more complete info:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/66966
You're using DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, but I was not, so I think we can
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
It'd be nice to get a clean trace. Are you able to obtain the full
trace with CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y?
If you are talking about
http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/dsc03659.jpg
then I think that _is_ a full trace. It's certainly not very
For example, missing from the call graph is
get_page_from_freelist -
buffered_rmqueue - [ missing - inlined ]
prep_new_page -[ missing - inlined ]
prep_zero_page - [ missing - inlined ]
clear_highpage -
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 02:11:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:01:53 +0400
Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:40:45AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
I had more complete info:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/66966
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:04:46 +0400
Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 02:11:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:01:53 +0400
Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:40:45AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
I
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 03:27:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:04:46 +0400
Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 02:11:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:01:53 +0400
Alexey Dobriyan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
66 matches
Mail list logo
