Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:14:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:14:27 -0500 Received: from chaos.analogic.com ([204.178.40.224]:1920 "EHLO chaos.analogic.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:14:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:14:22 -0500 (EST) From: "Richard B. Johnson" Reply-To: root@chaos.analogic.com To: Anthony DeRobertis cc: jtv , Jacques Gelinas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Whizzy New Feature: Paged segmented memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > jtv writes: > > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 02:17:14AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > >> > >> A nice thing about two stacks is that it can be a completely > >> userspace thing. No need to involve the kernel at all; just gcc > >> and friends. > > > > Doesn't it have ABI implications as well? > > On every architecture I'm familiar with. But that's a userland issue. I > don't believe the kernel cares how userland uses its stacks. > > Change gcc. Recompile world. All should work, assuming your gcc changes are > bug-free, no one made assumptions about stack layout, no one wrote assembly > code, etc. [In other words, after 4 months of debugging you might get X > running again...] > > > > > If so, why not go all the way and have stacks grow upwards? :-) > > Some architectures have hardware assistance for downward growing stacks. One > example is 68K. I think x86 does too. OTOH, I don't think PPC does, though I > haven't read the Green Book recently. > > Actually, if I were to be implementing split-stack, I'd probably have one > grow upward. Probably the data stack, because some architectures (68K, at > least) force the address stack to grow downwards. > > Put an unmapped page between the two stacks, and all should be fine. At least with Intel ix8*, even though one can create a discriptor for a (backwards) stack, you would have a hard time using it. 'Push' op-codes decrement the stack-pointer and 'pop' increments it regardless of the characteristics of the stack-selector. I don't know if this is a bug or a feature. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips). I was going to compile a list of innovations that could be attributed to Microsoft. Once I realized that Ctrl-Alt-Del was handled in the BIOS, I found that there aren't any. - 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/