Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 21:36:39 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
       Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, Joerg Engel <joern@logfs.org>
Subject: Re: Detailed Stack Information Patch [2/3]
Message-ID: <20090401193639.GB12316@elte.hu>
References: <1238511507.364.62.camel@matrix>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1238511507.364.62.camel@matrix>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1074
Lines: 28


* Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net> wrote:

> +config PROC_STACK_MONITOR
> + 	default y
> +	depends on PROC_STACK
> +	bool "Enable /proc/stackmon detailed stack monitoring"
> + 	help
> +	  This enables detailed monitoring of process and thread stack
> +	  utilization via the /proc/stackmon interface.
> +	  Disabling these interfaces will reduce the size of the kernel by
> +	  approximately 2kb.

Hm, i'm not convinced about this one. Stupid question: what's wrong 
with ulimit -s?

Also, if for some reason you dont want to (or cannot) enforce a 
system-wide stack size ulimit, or it has some limitation that makes 
it impractical for you - if we add what i suggested to the 
/proc/*/maps files, your user-space watchdog daemon could scan those 
periodically and report any excesses and zap the culprit ... right?

	Ingo
--
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/