Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267587AbUIJQQz (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:16:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267464AbUIJQP0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:15:26 -0400 Received: from the-village.bc.nu ([81.2.110.252]:40881 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267538AbUIJQOp (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:14:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Separate IRQ-stacks from 4K-stacks option From: Alan Cox To: Hugh Dickins Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , Andrea Arcangeli , arjanv@redhat.com, Chris Wedgwood , LKML , Christoph Hellwig In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1094829125.17464.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:12:05 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 923 Lines: 20 On Gwe, 2004-09-10 at 16:07, Hugh Dickins wrote: > 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? You only have 4K safe to use in all current configurations. Its a case of simply fixing the sloppy code (and or pushing up compiler versions where the compiler is the offender). > Wasn't Andrea worried, a couple of months back, about nested interrupts > overflowing the 4K interrupt stack? We've seen no evidence of this and assuming apps could use 4K safely the interrupt "stack" was about 2.5K before. Limiting it either by size or by depth is not a big problem at all. - 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/