Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030199AbVKPGy4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:54:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751205AbVKPGy4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:54:56 -0500 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:48598 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751184AbVKPGyz (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:54:55 -0500 Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] i386: always use 4k stacks From: Arjan van de Ven To: Parag Warudkar Cc: "Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:41:11 +0100" , Bernd Petrovitsch , linux-kernel In-Reply-To: References: <20051116004111.45f3f704.grundig@teleline.es> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:54:47 +0100 Message-Id: <1132124087.2834.1.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.0.4 on pentafluge.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (1.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP address [213.93.14.173 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 1.7 RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL RBL: NJABL: dialup sender did non-local SMTP [213.93.14.173 listed in combined.njabl.org] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1346 Lines: 34 On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 18:56 -0500, Parag Warudkar wrote: > On Nov 15, 2005, at 6:41 PM, Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:41:11 +0100 wrote: > > > > >> documentation for broadcom wireless: > >> http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/ > >> embrionic driver based on this spec: > >> http://bcm43xx.berlios.de/ > > > > > > Maybe a good deal would be to delay the 4K patch until some > > preliminary > > version of those is merged? > > Andi had some pretty valid comments against the 4K approach. > Here - http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/9/6/4 > I didn't see anyone contradicting his opinion. Seems very plausible > to me. the only argument I see is "we had overflows in 2.4 with 8k". In fact that is part of why 4K stacks was done! With 4k/4k stacks there is MORE stack space than in 2.4. Most of the overflows I've seen in 2.4 were nested interrupts with complex softirqs; with the 4k/4k stack approach interrupts have MORE stack space available than in 2.4, making overflows less likely. In addition the 2.6 kernel has undergone a "stack diet", the final piece of which is the IO submission change that is now in -mm. - 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/