Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 07:30:52 -0700
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, arjanv@redhat.com
cc: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Separate IRQ-stacks from 4K-stacks option
Message-ID: <593560000.1094826651@[10.10.2.4]>
In-Reply-To: <1094807650.17041.3.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20040909232532.GA13572@taniwha.stupidest.org> <1094798428.2800.3.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <1094807650.17041.3.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1051
Lines: 24

--Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote (on Friday, September 10, 2004 10:14:11 +0100):

> On Gwe, 2004-09-10 at 07:40, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> Well I always assumed the future plan was to remove 8k stacks entirely;
>> 4k+irqstacks and 8k basically have near comparable stack space, with
>> this patch you create an option that has more but that is/should be
>> deprecated. I'm not convinced that's a good idea.
> 
> Its probably appropriate to drop gcc 2.x support at that point too since
> it's the major cause of remaining problems

What problems does it cause? 2.95.4 still seems to work fine for me.

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.

M.

-
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/