Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946055AbXEAXbZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 May 2007 19:31:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1946058AbXEAXbZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 May 2007 19:31:25 -0400 Received: from agminet01.oracle.com ([141.146.126.228]:18188 "EHLO agminet01.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946055AbXEAXbX (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 May 2007 19:31:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:27:43 -0700 From: Bill Irwin To: Matt Mackall Cc: Bill Irwin , Christoph Hellwig , Andi Kleen , Alan Cox , David Chinner , Zan Lynx , Adrian Bunk , Linux Kernel , wli@holomorphy.com Subject: Re: [2/6] add config option to vmalloc stacks (was: Re: [-mm patch] i386: enable 4k stacks by default) Message-ID: <20070501232743.GX26598@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: Bill Irwin , Matt Mackall , Christoph Hellwig , Andi Kleen , Alan Cox , David Chinner , Zan Lynx , Adrian Bunk , Linux Kernel References: <20070430104806.GA14944@infradead.org> <20070430173819.GC19966@holomorphy.com> <20070430174310.GE19966@holomorphy.com> <20070430181104.GB14739@infradead.org> <20070430190952.GP31925@holomorphy.com> <20070430191511.GA25318@infradead.org> <20070501223606.GQ11166@waste.org> <20070501225125.GU26598@holomorphy.com> <20070501231548.GF11115@waste.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070501231548.GF11115@waste.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1112 Lines: 26 On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 05:36:06PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: >>> Can we register them lazily at request_irq time? On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 03:51:25PM -0700, Bill Irwin wrote: >> These IRQ stacks are per-cpu, not per-IRQ. It may make sense to >> implement per-IRQ stacks, in which case dynamic allocation at the time >> of request_irq() will make sense. >> Would you like me to implement per-IRQ IRQ stacks? On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 06:15:48PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote: > It's probably the "right" thing to do, but it does have higher > overhead for most systems. > But it also gives a very obvious migration path to -rt's irq threads. Well, I don't really know how much of -rt or which pieces of it are really going in. Otherwise it favors large-scale i386, which people largely want to ignore/break/etc. I'll err on the side of caution and not change it. -- wli - 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/