From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <499D5FC4.4030303@domain.hid> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:33:56 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <499D359C.3060805@domain.hid> <499D3801.5040303@domain.hid> <499D3FE6.4030208@domain.hid> <499D5B0A.7020608@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <499D5B0A.7020608@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] XENO_OPT_SYS_STACKPOOLSZ vs. switchtest List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: xenomai-core Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> Hi Gilles, >>>> >>>> how much XENO_OPT_SYS_STACKPOOLSZ do I need to run switchtest for >>>> default settings? At least on x86-64, the default 32K is not enough. >>>> Unless we talk about GB ;), maybe it makes sense to adjust the default >>>> size accordingly. >>> It depends on the arguments you pass to switchtest. >> None, ie. the default settings. > > Then 6 kernel-space tasks are created. Since switchtest is not the 6*4 is 20k... Ah, the well-known allocator overhead, I guess. Will try with >= 40k. > average use of Xenomai, and is supposed to be used only for validating > the context/FPU switches, I would not change XENO_OPT_SYS_STACKPOOL_SZ, > maybe only add a clear message when creation of kernel-space tasks fails. Well, isn't the switchtest part of xeno-test? Would be unfortunate to require a kernel rebuild just for running the standard tests. I think we don't loose much by slightly increasing the stack to, say, 64K on 32 bit and 128K on 64 bit archs. BTW, XNARCH_THREAD_STACKSZ for x86-64 equals the x86-32 bit value (4K) while I don't think the have they same demands (nor the same resource restrictions). Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux