Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932566AbVLRMDy (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Dec 2005 07:03:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932694AbVLRMDy (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Dec 2005 07:03:54 -0500 Received: from natsmtp00.rzone.de ([81.169.145.165]:23548 "EHLO natsmtp00.rzone.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932566AbVLRMDx (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Dec 2005 07:03:53 -0500 From: Stefan Rompf To: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] i386: always use 4k/4k stacks Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:04:37 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200512181149.02009.stefan@loplof.de> <1134904884.9626.7.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> In-Reply-To: <1134904884.9626.7.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200512181304.38054.stefan@loplof.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1646 Lines: 33 Am Sonntag 18 Dezember 2005 12:21 schrieb Arjan van de Ven: > the kernel has a stack overflow detector, which checks at irq entry time > if the stack is "rather high" (7kb into the stack on a 8kb stack, 3.5kb > on a 4k stack). When this warning hits there's still runway left (like > 12.5 percent), but lets say the end becomes in sight. If the stack usage > would be really tight, this "early warning" detector would be hitting a > lot of people, right? Wrong. The probability that an interrupt happens just during the codepath with highest stack usage is very small. Anyway CONFIG_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW is not enabled in 2.6.14.4 i386 defconfig. Don't know about vendor kernel kernels though. I thought more about filling the stack with some arbitrary value on thread startup and checking how much has been overwritten on a regular basis. Part of it is alreay there, hidden unter CONFIG_DEBUG_STACK_USAGE. The verification should just happen timer-controlled, not only on sysrq-whatever. > (and the "safety net" is a bit of misnomer, since it's not really safe, > just "statistically different" if the shit hits the fan) If you can't even guarantee that 8k (or 6k) is enough, how can you vote for 4k then ;-) Just a little provocation, I don't plan getting too involved into this dicussion, hell, this is just about a ridiculously small amount of self contained #ifdef'd code ;-) Stefan - 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/