On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> Shrink the held_lock struct by using bitfields.
> This shrinks task_struct on lockdep enabled kernels by 480 bytes.
Are we sure that there are no users that depend on accessing the different
fields under different locks?
Having them as separate "int"
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:14:13AM -0500, William Cohen wrote:
> This past week I was playing around with that pahole tool
> (http://oops.ghostprotocols.net:81/acme/dwarves/) and looking at the
> size of various struct in the kernel. I was surprised by the size of
> the task_struct on x86_64, a
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:19:45 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: William Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:14:13 -0500
>
> > This past week I was playing around with that pahole tool
> > (http://oops.ghostprotocols.net:81/acme/dwarves/) and looking at t
From: William Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:14:13 -0500
> This past week I was playing around with that pahole tool
> (http://oops.ghostprotocols.net:81/acme/dwarves/) and looking at the
> size of various struct in the kernel. I was surprised by the size of
> the task_struct
This past week I was playing around with that pahole tool
(http://oops.ghostprotocols.net:81/acme/dwarves/) and looking at the
size of various struct in the kernel. I was surprised by the size of
the task_struct on x86_64, approaching 4K. I looked through the
fields in task_struct and found that
5 matches
Mail list logo
