Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030481AbVLWKoz (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:44:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030482AbVLWKoz (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:44:55 -0500 Received: from bayc1-pasmtp07.bayc1.hotmail.com ([65.54.191.167]:35855 "EHLO BAYC1-PASMTP07.bayc1.hotmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030481AbVLWKoy (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:44:54 -0500 Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [69.156.6.171] X-Originating-Email: [seanlkml@sympatico.ca] Message-ID: <38510.10.10.10.28.1135334691.squirrel@linux1> In-Reply-To: References: <5lQOU-492-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <5lQOU-492-29@gated-at.bofh.it> Lines: 30 Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:44:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] i386: always use 4k stacks From: "Sean" To: 7eggert@gmx.de Cc: "Horst von Brand" , "Parag Warudkar" , "Dumitru Ciobarcianu" , "Helge Hafting" , "Andi Kleen" , "Adrian Bunk" , "Kyle Moffett" , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arjan@infradead.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4-2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Dec 2005 10:45:37.0937 (UTC) FILETIME=[02CD9810:01C607AE] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1796 Lines: 49 On Fri, December 23, 2005 5:12 am, Bodo Eggert said: > 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. > > Determined by voodoo and wild guessing. Bullshit. There's no more guessing involved than you thinking 8K stacks are sufficient. How do you know that 8K stacks are enough? If you don't understand the testing and common sense that has gone into 4K+4K stacks you should really be putting in a patch for 128K stacks, because you don't have any proof that 8K stacks are sufficient either (except by voodoo and wild guessing). However, if you _do_ understand the testing and coding methods then you'll see that 4K + 4K stacks are sufficient (modulo any bugs, which should be fixed). Sean > > Let's detect the need for 4K stacks: (I hope I found the correct place) > > (Maybe the printk should be completely ifdefed, but I'm not sure) > > Signed-off-by: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de> > > --- 2.6.14/kernel/fork.c.ori 2005-12-21 19:06:24.000000000 +0100 > +++ 2.6.14/kernel/fork.c 2005-12-21 19:15:23.000000000 +0100 > @@ -168,4 +168,9 @@ static struct task_struct *dup_task_stru > if (!ti) { > free_task_struct(tsk); > + printk(KERN_WARNING, "Can't allocate new task structure" > +#ifndef CONFIG_4KSTACKS > + ". Maybe you could benefit from 4K stacks.\n" > +#endif > + "\n"); > return NULL; > } > > - 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/