Re: [PATCH] Port SquashFS to 2.6

Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 21:52:39 EST

>>>>> "JE" == J.ANvrnEngel <> writes:

JE> On Sat, 19 July 2003 22:40:22 -0700, wrote:
>> - I would imagine that the acceptable stack usage for functions
>> would depend on where they are called and what they call.
>> Coulc you suggest a rule-of-thumb number for
>> address_space_operations.readpage (say, would 1kB be OK but
>> not 3kB?)

JE> Depending on where and what you do,...

Well, isn't asking about address_space_operations.readpage
specific enough?

JE> ... also depends a bit on the architecture. s390 has
JE> giant stacks because function call overhead is huge, ...

The discussion was about putting variables (or arrays or large
structs) the kernel programmer defines on the stack, and I do
not think architecture calling convention has much to do with

If an architecture has a big stack usage per call that is
imposed by the ABI, and larger kernel stack is allocated
compared to other architectures because of this reason,
shouldn't there be about the same amount of usable space left
for the kernel programs within the allocated per-process kernel
stack space to use? If that is not the case then the port to
that particular architecture would not be optimal, wouldn't it?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 22:00:45 EST