Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750808AbVLTSMP (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:12:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750823AbVLTSMP (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:12:15 -0500 Received: from emailhub.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:42509 "HELO mailout.stusta.mhn.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750808AbVLTSMP (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:12:15 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:12:04 +0100 From: Adrian Bunk To: David Lang Cc: Horst von Brand , Parag Warudkar , Dumitru Ciobarcianu , Helge Hafting , Andi Kleen , Kyle Moffett , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arjan@infradead.org Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] i386: always use 4k stacks Message-ID: <20051220181203.GH6789@stusta.de> References: <200512201428.jBKESAJ5004673@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2213 Lines: 57 On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 09:56:10AM -0800, David Lang wrote: > On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Horst von Brand wrote: > > > > >"With some drawbacks" is the point: It has been determined that the > >drawbacks are heavy enough that the 8KiB stack option should go. Given > >there is /no/ compelling argument /against/ 4KiB stacks, even very minor > >drawbacks are important. So first make 4KiB the standard (popular > >distributions work that way for /years/ now, with no measurable downsides), > > at least one of the 'popular distributions' that switched to 4k stacks > years ago worked around the problems that it generated by simply lableing > the portions that didn't work with 4k stacks as 'unsupported by this > distro' (XFS has been explicitly stated to be in this catagory in these > discussions) AFAIK, XFS is the only example. And the XFS related problems have already been fixed. > how many other corner cases are there that these distros just choose not > to support, but need to be supported and tested for the vanilla kernel? My count of bug reports for problems with in-kernel code with 4k stacks after Neil's patch went into -mm is still at 0. If 4k stacks were as unstable as you imply, why has noone been able to point to _one single_ problem with 4k stacks that is still present after Neil's patch went into -mm? > also for those who are arguing that it's only dropping from 6k to 4k, you > are forgetting that the patches to move the interrupts to a seperate stack > have already gone into the kernel, so today it is really 8k+4k and the > talk is to move it to 4k+4k. >... That's complete bullshit. Currently, seperate irq stacks are only used with CONFIG_4KSTACKS=y. > David Lang cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed - 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/