Re: [2.6 patch] let 4KSTACKS depend on EXPERIMENTAL and XFS on 4KSTACKS=n

From: Chris Wedgwood (cw_at_f00f.org)
Date: 07/20/04

  • Next message: Nathan Bryant: "Re: device_suspend() levels [was Re: [patch] ACPI work on aic7xxx]" 
    Date:	Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:42:38 -0700
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>

    On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:50:12PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:

    > 1. let 4KSTACKS depend on EXPERIMENTAL

    i don't like this change, despite what i might have claimed earlier :)

    the reason i say this is if XFS blows up with 4K stacks then it
    probably can with 8K stacks but it will be much harder, so it's not
    really fixing anything but just papering over the problem

    the reason for this is 8K stacks means you don't have separate irq
    stacks, so if and interrupt comes along at the right time and the
    codes paths are just right, you can still overflow (arguably you have
    less overall space than with 4K stacks and separate irq stacks)

    that said, separate irq stacks *and* 8k thread stacks would be safe,
    but i'd love to see ideas on how to get the stack utilization down
    (it's actually really hard)

      --cw
    -
    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/

  • Next message: Nathan Bryant: "Re: device_suspend() levels [was Re: [patch] ACPI work on aic7xxx]"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: [2.6 patch] i386: always use 4k stacks
      ... > have 4K stacks for whatever reason, ... but having supported option of 8K is important ... Point to an open source code which ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: Forth Question
      ... could the API be defined as new dictionary words? ... The reason is that that very few other languages set up two ... Is it impossible for an "other" compiler to target 2 stacks? ... Well, if it can do it, it can be targeted by the other compilers. ...
      (comp.lang.forth)
    • Re: Forth Question
      ... could the API be defined as new dictionary words? ... The reason is that that very few other languages set up two ... or you could rewrite C to use 2 stacks, and then all would be ok. ... Is it impossible for an "other" compiler to target 2 stacks? ...
      (comp.lang.forth)
    • Re: Unipod installation
      ... I'm sure there is a reason why MassFS does it ... stacks. ... Having to set flags before a device can be used is very bad from the ...
      (comp.sys.acorn.hardware)
    • Re: [2.6 patch] i386: always use 4k stacks
      ... My argument was it's not that a ton of i386 users are affected by having choice of stack sizes (I read LKML quite frequently and for long I don't remember seeing allocation failure errors - either people moved to 64 bits without LOWMEM and that helped or people just do fine with the current 8K stack on i386) and even if some are, let's leave the stack size as an option - it's not like it cause a lot of code bloat or other problems ... Whoever benefits can use the 4K stacks, others who feel it risky to have 4K stacks for whatever reason, can be happy too. ... We can even make the 4K default, but having supported option of 8K is important and almost all operating systems are having>4K stacks on i386 machines, so there is some reason for having it. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)