On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Brooks Davis wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 06:41:44AM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
re-sent with trimmed cc
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:35:56PM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <20141104045159.e1...@besplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes:
This optimization
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 06:41:44AM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> re-sent with trimmed cc
>
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:35:56PM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >
> > In message <20141104045159.e1...@besplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes:
> >
> > >This optimization is probably minor, but
> On Nov 4, 2014, at 6:22 AM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
>
>
>>> On Nov 4, 2014, at 1:25 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 01:45:21PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>> Isn't there a problem where the stack can be swapped out?
>>>
>>> I seem to recall a problem
> On Nov 4, 2014, at 1:25 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 01:45:21PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>> Isn't there a problem where the stack can be swapped out?
>>
>> I seem to recall a problem where a swapped out process was causing
>> problems due to a buffer pas
In message <20141104053520.ga4...@dft-labs.eu>, Mateusz Guzik writes:
>On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:35:56PM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>> In message <20141104045159.e1...@besplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes:
>>
>> >This optimization is probably minor, but reminds me of oth
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:35:56PM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> In message <20141104045159.e1...@besplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes:
>
> >This optimization is probably minor, but reminds me of other syscalls
> >that would benefit using a single largish allocation up front:
> >- a
On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 06:03:29AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> Why not just use a C99 VLA? It doesn't require any compiler magic except
> being a C99 compiler (I haven't seen any of those yet, but some approximate
> C99 for VLAs).
I use this in delayed signal delivery code in libthr.
>
> You (ki
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 01:45:21PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Isn't there a problem where the stack can be swapped out?
>
> I seem to recall a problem where a swapped out process was causing
> problems due to a buffer passed being stack allocated and that process
> being swapped out...
>
re-sent with trimmed cc
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 07:35:56PM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> In message <20141104045159.e1...@besplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes:
>
> >This optimization is probably minor, but reminds me of other syscalls
> >that would benefit using a single largish al
On 11/03/14 22:45, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
+u_char smalldata[128];
You should make sure the smalldata is properly aligned, hence on ARM it
might cause aligment faults, if fields inside the IOCTL are not accessed
with proper alignment.
--HPS
__
Isn't there a problem where the stack can be swapped out?
I seem to recall a problem where a swapped out process was causing
problems due to a buffer passed being stack allocated and that process
being swapped out...
If this is not the case then please disregard.
-Alfred
On 11/2/14, 11:46 P
In message <20141104045159.e1...@besplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes:
>This optimization is probably minor, but reminds me of other syscalls
>that would benefit using a single largish allocation up front:
>- all vfs calls that start with namei(). They allocate PATH_MAX (1K)
> bytes an
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 10:21:32AM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:29:06AM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 11/03/14 09:23, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 11/3/14, 4:21 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 11/3/14, 3:46 PM, Mateus
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 11/3/14, 3:46 PM, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
Author: mjg
Date: Mon Nov 3 07:46:51 2014
New Revision: 274017
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/274017
Log:
Provide an on-stack temporary buffer for small ioctl requests.
I'm not sure I like
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 10:21:32AM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:29:06AM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > On 11/03/14 09:23, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > >On 11/3/14, 4:21 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > >>On 11/3/14, 3:46 PM, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> > >>>Author: mjg
> >
On 11/03/14 10:21, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:29:06AM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 11/03/14 09:23, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 11/3/14, 4:21 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 11/3/14, 3:46 PM, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
Author: mjg
Date: Mon Nov 3 07:46:51 2014
New Revision:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:29:06AM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 11/03/14 09:23, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >On 11/3/14, 4:21 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >>On 11/3/14, 3:46 PM, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> >>>Author: mjg
> >>>Date: Mon Nov 3 07:46:51 2014
> >>>New Revision: 274017
> >>>URL: http
On 11/03/14 10:08, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 04:21:02PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 11/3/14, 3:46 PM, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
Author: mjg
Date: Mon Nov 3 07:46:51 2014
New Revision: 274017
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/274017
Log:
Provide an on-stack t
On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 04:21:02PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 11/3/14, 3:46 PM, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> >Author: mjg
> >Date: Mon Nov 3 07:46:51 2014
> >New Revision: 274017
> >URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/274017
> >
> >Log:
> > Provide an on-stack temporary buffer for s
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, at 08:21, Julian Elischer wrote:
> I'm open to being persuaded but I think we need to have a discussion
> about stack usage. We used to say that anything greater that, say
> 64 bytes should probably be allocated.
I have to admit the level of stack usage in my current $DAYJOB pr
On 11/03/14 09:23, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 11/3/14, 4:21 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 11/3/14, 3:46 PM, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
Author: mjg
Date: Mon Nov 3 07:46:51 2014
New Revision: 274017
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/274017
Log:
Provide an on-stack temporary buffer for
On 11/3/14, 4:21 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 11/3/14, 3:46 PM, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
Author: mjg
Date: Mon Nov 3 07:46:51 2014
New Revision: 274017
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/274017
Log:
Provide an on-stack temporary buffer for small ioctl requests.
I'm not sure I like
On 11/3/14, 3:46 PM, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
Author: mjg
Date: Mon Nov 3 07:46:51 2014
New Revision: 274017
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/274017
Log:
Provide an on-stack temporary buffer for small ioctl requests.
I'm not sure I like this. We don't know how many more levels
of
Author: mjg
Date: Mon Nov 3 07:46:51 2014
New Revision: 274017
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/274017
Log:
Provide an on-stack temporary buffer for small ioctl requests.
Modified:
head/sys/kern/sys_generic.c
Modified: head/sys/kern/sys_generic.c
==
24 matches
Mail list logo