On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 05:27:51AM +, Nick Terrell wrote:
> Adam, I’ve applied the same patch in my tree. I’ll send out the update [1]
> once it's reviewed, since I also reduced the stack usage of functions
> using over 1 KB of stack space.
>
> I have userland tests set up mocking the linux
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 05:27:51AM +, Nick Terrell wrote:
> Adam, I’ve applied the same patch in my tree. I’ll send out the update [1]
> once it's reviewed, since I also reduced the stack usage of functions
> using over 1 KB of stack space.
>
> I have userland tests set up mocking the linux
> Please don't top post.
Sorry about that.
> Which function needs 1KB of stack space? That's quite a lot.
FSE_buildCTable_wksp(), FSE_compress_wksp(), and HUF_readDTableX4()
required over 1 KB of stack space.
> I can see in [1] that there are some on-stack buffers replaced by
> pointers to the
> Please don't top post.
Sorry about that.
> Which function needs 1KB of stack space? That's quite a lot.
FSE_buildCTable_wksp(), FSE_compress_wksp(), and HUF_readDTableX4()
required over 1 KB of stack space.
> I can see in [1] that there are some on-stack buffers replaced by
> pointers to the
Please don't top post.
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 05:27:51AM +, Nick Terrell wrote:
> Adam, I’ve applied the same patch in my tree. I’ll send out the update [1]
> once it's reviewed, since I also reduced the stack usage of functions
> using over 1 KB of stack space.
Which function needs 1KB of
Please don't top post.
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 05:27:51AM +, Nick Terrell wrote:
> Adam, I’ve applied the same patch in my tree. I’ll send out the update [1]
> once it's reviewed, since I also reduced the stack usage of functions
> using over 1 KB of stack space.
Which function needs 1KB of
Adam, I’ve applied the same patch in my tree. I’ll send out the update [1]
once it's reviewed, since I also reduced the stack usage of functions
using over 1 KB of stack space.
You’re right that div_u64() will work, since the FSE functions are only
called on blocks of at most 128 KB at a time.
Adam, I’ve applied the same patch in my tree. I’ll send out the update [1]
once it's reviewed, since I also reduced the stack usage of functions
using over 1 KB of stack space.
You’re right that div_u64() will work, since the FSE functions are only
called on blocks of at most 128 KB at a time.
David Sterba wrote:
> > Thus, you want do_div() instead of /; do check widths and signedness of
> > arguments.
>
> No do_div please, div_u64 or div64_u64.
Good to know, the interface of do_div() is indeed weird.
I guess Nick has found and fixed the offending divisions in his tree
already, but
David Sterba wrote:
> > Thus, you want do_div() instead of /; do check widths and signedness of
> > arguments.
>
> No do_div please, div_u64 or div64_u64.
Good to know, the interface of do_div() is indeed weird.
I guess Nick has found and fixed the offending divisions in his tree
already, but
10 matches
Mail list logo