Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755212AbcKJBr6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:47:58 -0500 Received: from frisell.zx2c4.com ([192.95.5.64]:59859 "EHLO frisell.zx2c4.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754093AbcKJBr5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Nov 2016 20:47:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5823BCA3.2020202@caviumnetworks.com> References: <5823BCA3.2020202@caviumnetworks.com> From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 02:47:47 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: Proposal: HAVE_SEPARATE_IRQ_STACK? To: David Daney Cc: LKML , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Thomas Gleixner , WireGuard mailing list , k@vodka.home.kg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 533 Lines: 11 On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 1:17 AM, David Daney wrote: > Easiest thing to do would be to select 16K page size in your .config, I > think that will give you a similar sized stack. I didn't realize that was possible... I'm mostly concerned about the best way to deal with systems that have a limited stack size on architectures without support for separate irq stacks. Part of this I assume involves actually detecting with a processor definition that the current architecture has a deceptively small stack.