Re: [PATCH 1/3] Separate IRQ-stacks from 4K-stacks option

From: Arjan van de Ven (arjanv_at_redhat.com)
Date: 09/10/04

  • Next message: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: [PATCH 1/3] Separate IRQ-stacks from 4K-stacks option" 
    Date:	Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:15:38 +0200
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>

    On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 04:07:21PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
    > On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
    > >
    > > I agree about killing anything but 4K stacks though - having the single
    > > page is very compelling - not only can we allocate it easier, but we can
    > > also use cache-hot pages from the hot list.
    >
    > I think we all agree that's a promising future, and a good discipline.
    > But I'm not the only one to doubt we're there yet.
    >

    > Chris's patch seems eminently sensible to me. Why should having separate
    > interrupt stack depend on whether you're configured for 4K or 8K stacks?

    because it gives people a reason to do sloppy coding.

    > Wasn't Andrea worried, a couple of months back, about nested interrupts
    > overflowing the 4K interrupt stack?

    I don't think so; interrupts seem to behave quite ok in this regard.
    What we should consider regardless is disable the nesting of irqs for
    performance reasons but that's an independent matter

    -
    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: Andrea Arcangeli: "Re: [PATCH 1/3] Separate IRQ-stacks from 4K-stacks option"
    • Quantcast