Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265709AbUATVHZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:07:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265713AbUATVHY (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:07:24 -0500 Received: from pooh.lsc.hu ([195.56.172.131]:7065 "EHLO pooh.lsc.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265709AbUATVHX convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:07:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:52:01 +0100 From: GCS To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Andrew Morton , helgehaf@aitel.hist.no, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.1-mm5 dies booting, possibly network related Message-ID: <20040120205201.GA17026@lsc.hu> References: <20040120000535.7fb8e683.akpm@osdl.org> <400D083F.6080907@aitel.hist.no> <20040120175408.GA12805@lsc.hu> <20040120102302.47fa26cd.akpm@osdl.org> <200401201853.i0KIrS6Z025026@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT In-Reply-To: <200401201853.i0KIrS6Z025026@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Operating-System: GNU/Linux User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1532 Lines: 33 On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:53:28PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:23:02 PST, Andrew Morton said: > > > So yes, whatever compiler you are using, turn off CONFIG_REGPARM - it is > > still very experimental. It's not CONFIG_REGPARM :-(, I have turned it off, recompiled, reboot -> same effect (it seems the list dropped my mail with bootlog, should I resend it to the list with gzip compression?). If someone can help me what patches should I revert, I would be happy to help OTOH. > > (And of dubious value - it only saved me 0.6% of program text). It was for experiencing only, but I see it's not for real value. :-| > I wonder if this is because the x86 architecture is relatively > register-starved, I have started on Sun's SparcStaion (LX actually), and I like RISC processors much more since then. :-) > and as a result, we pass the parameters in registers, but the > first thing the function has to do is store half of them on the stack so it has > enough free registers to work with. If this is the case then regparm(1) or > regparm(2) may do better/worse by changing how much register pressure the > function starts off with. Yup, that can be the reason why Andrew saw only 0.6% save on program text. Cheers, GCS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/