* [PATCH] reduce stack usage of node_read_meminfo()
@ 2010-07-08 9:20 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: KOSAKI Motohiro @ 2010-07-08 9:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML, linux-mm, Andrew Morton; +Cc: kosaki.motohiro
Now, cmpilation node_read_meminfo() output following warning. Because
it has very large sprintf() argument.
drivers/base/node.c: In function 'node_read_meminfo':
drivers/base/node.c:139: warning: the frame size of 848 bytes is
larger than 512 bytes
This patch fixes it by splitting sprintf() in three parts.
It doesn't have functional change.
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
drivers/base/node.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
index 2bdd8a9..a0fb2ef 100644
--- a/drivers/base/node.c
+++ b/drivers/base/node.c
@@ -66,8 +66,7 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
struct sysinfo i;
si_meminfo_node(&i, nid);
-
- n = sprintf(buf, "\n"
+ n = sprintf(buf,
"Node %d MemTotal: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d MemFree: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d MemUsed: %8lu kB\n"
@@ -78,13 +77,33 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
"Node %d Active(file): %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d Inactive(file): %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d Unevictable: %8lu kB\n"
- "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n"
+ "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n",
+ nid, K(i.totalram),
+ nid, K(i.freeram),
+ nid, K(i.totalram - i.freeram),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
+ node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_ANON) +
+ node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_ANON)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_UNEVICTABLE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_MLOCK)));
+
#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
+ n += sprintf(buf,
"Node %d HighTotal: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d HighFree: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d LowTotal: %8lu kB\n"
- "Node %d LowFree: %8lu kB\n"
+ "Node %d LowFree: %8lu kB\n",
+ nid, K(i.totalhigh),
+ nid, K(i.freehigh),
+ nid, K(i.totalram - i.totalhigh),
+ nid, K(i.freeram - i.freehigh));
#endif
+ n += sprintf(buf,
"Node %d Dirty: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d Writeback: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d FilePages: %8lu kB\n"
@@ -99,25 +118,6 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
"Node %d Slab: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d SReclaimable: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d SUnreclaim: %8lu kB\n",
- nid, K(i.totalram),
- nid, K(i.freeram),
- nid, K(i.totalram - i.freeram),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
- node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_ANON) +
- node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_ANON)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_UNEVICTABLE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_MLOCK)),
-#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
- nid, K(i.totalhigh),
- nid, K(i.freehigh),
- nid, K(i.totalram - i.totalhigh),
- nid, K(i.freeram - i.freehigh),
-#endif
nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_FILE_DIRTY)),
nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_WRITEBACK)),
nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_FILE_PAGES)),
--
1.6.5.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] reduce stack usage of node_read_meminfo()
@ 2010-07-08 9:20 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: KOSAKI Motohiro @ 2010-07-08 9:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML, linux-mm, Andrew Morton; +Cc: kosaki.motohiro
Now, cmpilation node_read_meminfo() output following warning. Because
it has very large sprintf() argument.
drivers/base/node.c: In function 'node_read_meminfo':
drivers/base/node.c:139: warning: the frame size of 848 bytes is
larger than 512 bytes
This patch fixes it by splitting sprintf() in three parts.
It doesn't have functional change.
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
drivers/base/node.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
index 2bdd8a9..a0fb2ef 100644
--- a/drivers/base/node.c
+++ b/drivers/base/node.c
@@ -66,8 +66,7 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
struct sysinfo i;
si_meminfo_node(&i, nid);
-
- n = sprintf(buf, "\n"
+ n = sprintf(buf,
"Node %d MemTotal: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d MemFree: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d MemUsed: %8lu kB\n"
@@ -78,13 +77,33 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
"Node %d Active(file): %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d Inactive(file): %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d Unevictable: %8lu kB\n"
- "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n"
+ "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n",
+ nid, K(i.totalram),
+ nid, K(i.freeram),
+ nid, K(i.totalram - i.freeram),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
+ node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_ANON) +
+ node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_ANON)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_UNEVICTABLE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_MLOCK)));
+
#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
+ n += sprintf(buf,
"Node %d HighTotal: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d HighFree: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d LowTotal: %8lu kB\n"
- "Node %d LowFree: %8lu kB\n"
+ "Node %d LowFree: %8lu kB\n",
+ nid, K(i.totalhigh),
+ nid, K(i.freehigh),
+ nid, K(i.totalram - i.totalhigh),
+ nid, K(i.freeram - i.freehigh));
#endif
+ n += sprintf(buf,
"Node %d Dirty: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d Writeback: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d FilePages: %8lu kB\n"
@@ -99,25 +118,6 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
"Node %d Slab: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d SReclaimable: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d SUnreclaim: %8lu kB\n",
- nid, K(i.totalram),
- nid, K(i.freeram),
- nid, K(i.totalram - i.freeram),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
- node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_ANON) +
- node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_ANON)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_UNEVICTABLE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_MLOCK)),
-#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
- nid, K(i.totalhigh),
- nid, K(i.freehigh),
- nid, K(i.totalram - i.totalhigh),
- nid, K(i.freeram - i.freehigh),
-#endif
nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_FILE_DIRTY)),
nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_WRITEBACK)),
nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_FILE_PAGES)),
--
1.6.5.2
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] reduce stack usage of node_read_meminfo()
2010-07-08 9:20 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
@ 2010-07-08 10:41 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: KOSAKI Motohiro @ 2010-07-08 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML; +Cc: kosaki.motohiro, linux-mm, Andrew Morton
Grr, I did sent old ver. right patch is here ;-)
sorry.
================================================
Subject: [PATCH] reduce stack usage of node_read_meminfo()
Now, cmpilation node_read_meminfo() output following warning. Because
it has very large sprintf() argument.
drivers/base/node.c: In function 'node_read_meminfo':
drivers/base/node.c:139: warning: the frame size of 848 bytes is
larger than 512 bytes
This patch fixes it by splitting sprintf() in three parts.
This also reduce CONFIG_HIGHMEM mess a bit.
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
drivers/base/node.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
index 2bdd8a9..2872e86 100644
--- a/drivers/base/node.c
+++ b/drivers/base/node.c
@@ -66,8 +66,7 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
struct sysinfo i;
si_meminfo_node(&i, nid);
-
- n = sprintf(buf, "\n"
+ n = sprintf(buf,
"Node %d MemTotal: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d MemFree: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d MemUsed: %8lu kB\n"
@@ -78,13 +77,33 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
"Node %d Active(file): %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d Inactive(file): %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d Unevictable: %8lu kB\n"
- "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n"
+ "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n",
+ nid, K(i.totalram),
+ nid, K(i.freeram),
+ nid, K(i.totalram - i.freeram),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
+ node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_ANON) +
+ node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_ANON)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_UNEVICTABLE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_MLOCK)));
+
#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
+ n += sprintf(buf + n,
"Node %d HighTotal: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d HighFree: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d LowTotal: %8lu kB\n"
- "Node %d LowFree: %8lu kB\n"
+ "Node %d LowFree: %8lu kB\n",
+ nid, K(i.totalhigh),
+ nid, K(i.freehigh),
+ nid, K(i.totalram - i.totalhigh),
+ nid, K(i.freeram - i.freehigh));
#endif
+ n += sprintf(buf + n,
"Node %d Dirty: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d Writeback: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d FilePages: %8lu kB\n"
@@ -99,25 +118,6 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
"Node %d Slab: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d SReclaimable: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d SUnreclaim: %8lu kB\n",
- nid, K(i.totalram),
- nid, K(i.freeram),
- nid, K(i.totalram - i.freeram),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
- node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_ANON) +
- node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_ANON)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_UNEVICTABLE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_MLOCK)),
-#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
- nid, K(i.totalhigh),
- nid, K(i.freehigh),
- nid, K(i.totalram - i.totalhigh),
- nid, K(i.freeram - i.freehigh),
-#endif
nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_FILE_DIRTY)),
nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_WRITEBACK)),
nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_FILE_PAGES)),
--
1.6.5.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] reduce stack usage of node_read_meminfo()
@ 2010-07-08 10:41 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: KOSAKI Motohiro @ 2010-07-08 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML; +Cc: kosaki.motohiro, linux-mm, Andrew Morton
Grr, I did sent old ver. right patch is here ;-)
sorry.
================================================
Subject: [PATCH] reduce stack usage of node_read_meminfo()
Now, cmpilation node_read_meminfo() output following warning. Because
it has very large sprintf() argument.
drivers/base/node.c: In function 'node_read_meminfo':
drivers/base/node.c:139: warning: the frame size of 848 bytes is
larger than 512 bytes
This patch fixes it by splitting sprintf() in three parts.
This also reduce CONFIG_HIGHMEM mess a bit.
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
drivers/base/node.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
index 2bdd8a9..2872e86 100644
--- a/drivers/base/node.c
+++ b/drivers/base/node.c
@@ -66,8 +66,7 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
struct sysinfo i;
si_meminfo_node(&i, nid);
-
- n = sprintf(buf, "\n"
+ n = sprintf(buf,
"Node %d MemTotal: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d MemFree: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d MemUsed: %8lu kB\n"
@@ -78,13 +77,33 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
"Node %d Active(file): %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d Inactive(file): %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d Unevictable: %8lu kB\n"
- "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n"
+ "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n",
+ nid, K(i.totalram),
+ nid, K(i.freeram),
+ nid, K(i.totalram - i.freeram),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
+ node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_ANON) +
+ node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_ANON)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_UNEVICTABLE)),
+ nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_MLOCK)));
+
#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
+ n += sprintf(buf + n,
"Node %d HighTotal: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d HighFree: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d LowTotal: %8lu kB\n"
- "Node %d LowFree: %8lu kB\n"
+ "Node %d LowFree: %8lu kB\n",
+ nid, K(i.totalhigh),
+ nid, K(i.freehigh),
+ nid, K(i.totalram - i.totalhigh),
+ nid, K(i.freeram - i.freehigh));
#endif
+ n += sprintf(buf + n,
"Node %d Dirty: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d Writeback: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d FilePages: %8lu kB\n"
@@ -99,25 +118,6 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
"Node %d Slab: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d SReclaimable: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d SUnreclaim: %8lu kB\n",
- nid, K(i.totalram),
- nid, K(i.freeram),
- nid, K(i.totalram - i.freeram),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
- node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_ANON) +
- node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_ANON)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_INACTIVE_FILE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_UNEVICTABLE)),
- nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_MLOCK)),
-#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
- nid, K(i.totalhigh),
- nid, K(i.freehigh),
- nid, K(i.totalram - i.totalhigh),
- nid, K(i.freeram - i.freehigh),
-#endif
nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_FILE_DIRTY)),
nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_WRITEBACK)),
nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_FILE_PAGES)),
--
1.6.5.2
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] reduce stack usage of node_read_meminfo()
2010-07-08 9:20 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
@ 2010-07-08 20:58 ` Andrew Morton
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2010-07-08 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: KOSAKI Motohiro; +Cc: LKML, linux-mm
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 18:20:14 +0900 (JST)
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Now, cmpilation node_read_meminfo() output following warning. Because
> it has very large sprintf() argument.
>
> drivers/base/node.c: In function 'node_read_meminfo':
> drivers/base/node.c:139: warning: the frame size of 848 bytes is
> larger than 512 bytes
hm, I'm surprised it's that much.
> --- a/drivers/base/node.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/node.c
> @@ -66,8 +66,7 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
> struct sysinfo i;
>
> si_meminfo_node(&i, nid);
> -
> - n = sprintf(buf, "\n"
> + n = sprintf(buf,
> "Node %d MemTotal: %8lu kB\n"
> "Node %d MemFree: %8lu kB\n"
> "Node %d MemUsed: %8lu kB\n"
> @@ -78,13 +77,33 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
> "Node %d Active(file): %8lu kB\n"
> "Node %d Inactive(file): %8lu kB\n"
> "Node %d Unevictable: %8lu kB\n"
> - "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n"
> + "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n",
> + nid, K(i.totalram),
> + nid, K(i.freeram),
> + nid, K(i.totalram - i.freeram),
> + nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
> + node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
Why the heck did we decide to print the same node-id 10000 times?
> + n += sprintf(buf,
You just got caught sending untested patches.
--- a/drivers/base/node.c~drivers-base-nodec-reduce-stack-usage-of-node_read_meminfo-fix
+++ a/drivers/base/node.c
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct
nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_MLOCK)));
#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
- n += sprintf(buf,
+ n += sprintf(buf + n,
"Node %d HighTotal: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d HighFree: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d LowTotal: %8lu kB\n"
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct
nid, K(i.totalram - i.totalhigh),
nid, K(i.freeram - i.freehigh));
#endif
- n += sprintf(buf,
+ n += sprintf(buf + n,
"Node %d Dirty: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d Writeback: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d FilePages: %8lu kB\n"
_
Please, run the code and check that we didn't muck up the output.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] reduce stack usage of node_read_meminfo()
@ 2010-07-08 20:58 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2010-07-08 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: KOSAKI Motohiro; +Cc: LKML, linux-mm
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 18:20:14 +0900 (JST)
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Now, cmpilation node_read_meminfo() output following warning. Because
> it has very large sprintf() argument.
>
> drivers/base/node.c: In function 'node_read_meminfo':
> drivers/base/node.c:139: warning: the frame size of 848 bytes is
> larger than 512 bytes
hm, I'm surprised it's that much.
> --- a/drivers/base/node.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/node.c
> @@ -66,8 +66,7 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
> struct sysinfo i;
>
> si_meminfo_node(&i, nid);
> -
> - n = sprintf(buf, "\n"
> + n = sprintf(buf,
> "Node %d MemTotal: %8lu kB\n"
> "Node %d MemFree: %8lu kB\n"
> "Node %d MemUsed: %8lu kB\n"
> @@ -78,13 +77,33 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
> "Node %d Active(file): %8lu kB\n"
> "Node %d Inactive(file): %8lu kB\n"
> "Node %d Unevictable: %8lu kB\n"
> - "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n"
> + "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n",
> + nid, K(i.totalram),
> + nid, K(i.freeram),
> + nid, K(i.totalram - i.freeram),
> + nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
> + node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
Why the heck did we decide to print the same node-id 10000 times?
> + n += sprintf(buf,
You just got caught sending untested patches.
--- a/drivers/base/node.c~drivers-base-nodec-reduce-stack-usage-of-node_read_meminfo-fix
+++ a/drivers/base/node.c
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct
nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_MLOCK)));
#ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
- n += sprintf(buf,
+ n += sprintf(buf + n,
"Node %d HighTotal: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d HighFree: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d LowTotal: %8lu kB\n"
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct
nid, K(i.totalram - i.totalhigh),
nid, K(i.freeram - i.freehigh));
#endif
- n += sprintf(buf,
+ n += sprintf(buf + n,
"Node %d Dirty: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d Writeback: %8lu kB\n"
"Node %d FilePages: %8lu kB\n"
_
Please, run the code and check that we didn't muck up the output.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] reduce stack usage of node_read_meminfo()
2010-07-08 10:41 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
@ 2010-07-08 20:59 ` Andrew Morton
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2010-07-08 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: KOSAKI Motohiro; +Cc: LKML, linux-mm
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 19:41:57 +0900 (JST)
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Grr, I did sent old ver. right patch is here ;-)
> sorry.
oop, there it is. Did you check the output carefully?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] reduce stack usage of node_read_meminfo()
@ 2010-07-08 20:59 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2010-07-08 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: KOSAKI Motohiro; +Cc: LKML, linux-mm
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 19:41:57 +0900 (JST)
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Grr, I did sent old ver. right patch is here ;-)
> sorry.
oop, there it is. Did you check the output carefully?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] reduce stack usage of node_read_meminfo()
2010-07-08 20:58 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2010-07-09 0:14 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: KOSAKI Motohiro @ 2010-07-09 0:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: kosaki.motohiro, LKML, linux-mm
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 18:20:14 +0900 (JST)
> KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Now, cmpilation node_read_meminfo() output following warning. Because
> > it has very large sprintf() argument.
> >
> > drivers/base/node.c: In function 'node_read_meminfo':
> > drivers/base/node.c:139: warning: the frame size of 848 bytes is
> > larger than 512 bytes
>
> hm, I'm surprised it's that much.
me too.
>
> > --- a/drivers/base/node.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/node.c
> > @@ -66,8 +66,7 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
> > struct sysinfo i;
> >
> > si_meminfo_node(&i, nid);
> > -
> > - n = sprintf(buf, "\n"
> > + n = sprintf(buf,
> > "Node %d MemTotal: %8lu kB\n"
> > "Node %d MemFree: %8lu kB\n"
> > "Node %d MemUsed: %8lu kB\n"
> > @@ -78,13 +77,33 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
> > "Node %d Active(file): %8lu kB\n"
> > "Node %d Inactive(file): %8lu kB\n"
> > "Node %d Unevictable: %8lu kB\n"
> > - "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n"
> > + "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n",
> > + nid, K(i.totalram),
> > + nid, K(i.freeram),
> > + nid, K(i.totalram - i.freeram),
> > + nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
> > + node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
>
> Why the heck did we decide to print the same node-id 10000 times?
dunno. but I don't want to make behavior change for only stack reducing.
>
> > + n += sprintf(buf,
>
> You just got caught sending untested patches.
>
> --- a/drivers/base/node.c~drivers-base-nodec-reduce-stack-usage-of-node_read_meminfo-fix
> +++ a/drivers/base/node.c
> @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct
> nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_MLOCK)));
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
> - n += sprintf(buf,
> + n += sprintf(buf + n,
> "Node %d HighTotal: %8lu kB\n"
> "Node %d HighFree: %8lu kB\n"
> "Node %d LowTotal: %8lu kB\n"
> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct
> nid, K(i.totalram - i.totalhigh),
> nid, K(i.freeram - i.freehigh));
> #endif
> - n += sprintf(buf,
> + n += sprintf(buf + n,
> "Node %d Dirty: %8lu kB\n"
> "Node %d Writeback: %8lu kB\n"
> "Node %d FilePages: %8lu kB\n"
> _
>
>
> Please, run the code and check that we didn't muck up the output.
100% my fault. I ran it, but I forgot to merge two patches ;)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] reduce stack usage of node_read_meminfo()
@ 2010-07-09 0:14 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: KOSAKI Motohiro @ 2010-07-09 0:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: kosaki.motohiro, LKML, linux-mm
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 18:20:14 +0900 (JST)
> KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Now, cmpilation node_read_meminfo() output following warning. Because
> > it has very large sprintf() argument.
> >
> > drivers/base/node.c: In function 'node_read_meminfo':
> > drivers/base/node.c:139: warning: the frame size of 848 bytes is
> > larger than 512 bytes
>
> hm, I'm surprised it's that much.
me too.
>
> > --- a/drivers/base/node.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/node.c
> > @@ -66,8 +66,7 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
> > struct sysinfo i;
> >
> > si_meminfo_node(&i, nid);
> > -
> > - n = sprintf(buf, "\n"
> > + n = sprintf(buf,
> > "Node %d MemTotal: %8lu kB\n"
> > "Node %d MemFree: %8lu kB\n"
> > "Node %d MemUsed: %8lu kB\n"
> > @@ -78,13 +77,33 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct sys_device * dev,
> > "Node %d Active(file): %8lu kB\n"
> > "Node %d Inactive(file): %8lu kB\n"
> > "Node %d Unevictable: %8lu kB\n"
> > - "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n"
> > + "Node %d Mlocked: %8lu kB\n",
> > + nid, K(i.totalram),
> > + nid, K(i.freeram),
> > + nid, K(i.totalram - i.freeram),
> > + nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_ANON) +
> > + node_page_state(nid, NR_ACTIVE_FILE)),
>
> Why the heck did we decide to print the same node-id 10000 times?
dunno. but I don't want to make behavior change for only stack reducing.
>
> > + n += sprintf(buf,
>
> You just got caught sending untested patches.
>
> --- a/drivers/base/node.c~drivers-base-nodec-reduce-stack-usage-of-node_read_meminfo-fix
> +++ a/drivers/base/node.c
> @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct
> nid, K(node_page_state(nid, NR_MLOCK)));
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HIGHMEM
> - n += sprintf(buf,
> + n += sprintf(buf + n,
> "Node %d HighTotal: %8lu kB\n"
> "Node %d HighFree: %8lu kB\n"
> "Node %d LowTotal: %8lu kB\n"
> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static ssize_t node_read_meminfo(struct
> nid, K(i.totalram - i.totalhigh),
> nid, K(i.freeram - i.freehigh));
> #endif
> - n += sprintf(buf,
> + n += sprintf(buf + n,
> "Node %d Dirty: %8lu kB\n"
> "Node %d Writeback: %8lu kB\n"
> "Node %d FilePages: %8lu kB\n"
> _
>
>
> Please, run the code and check that we didn't muck up the output.
100% my fault. I ran it, but I forgot to merge two patches ;)
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-07-09 0:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-07-08 9:20 [PATCH] reduce stack usage of node_read_meminfo() KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-07-08 9:20 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-07-08 10:41 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-07-08 10:41 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-07-08 20:59 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-08 20:59 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-08 20:58 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-08 20:58 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-09 0:14 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-07-09 0:14 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.