Re: x86: 4kstacks default

[Denys Vlasenko]

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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/