Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:03:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:03:36 -0500 Received: from brooklyn-bridge.emea.veritas.com ([62.172.234.2]:39358 "EHLO einstein.homenet") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:03:20 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 16:06:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Tigran Aivazian X-X-Sender: To: Arjan van de Ven cc: , Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [patch] larger kernel stack (8k->16k) per task 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 Hi Arjan, > Also it's the wrong approach. The right approach (as done by Manfred and > David) is > to put "current" no longer on this stack just a pointer to current. Can you clarify this, please (because by default your statement sounds like nonsense, sorry). You are saying that the right approach is to move "current" off the stack. The right approach to what? Surely not to saving kernel stack because "current" (being merely a struct task_struct) is not a major eater of the stack. Those functions which declare 5-6k of local variables are (if there are still any left). Speaking of which, I will also answer Rik -- the offenders (that "VERY VERY sick code" Arjan refers to) we found were in LKCD so it's been fixed ages ago. So, moving struct task_struct is irrelevant, really. Unless you meant something completely different and if so I look forward to your clarifications. Regards, Tigran - 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/