From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4C34438D.9020905@domain.hid> Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:06:21 +0200 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-help] native: A 32k stack is not always a 'reasonable' size List-Id: Help regarding installation and common use of Xenomai List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Soetens Cc: xenomai-help Peter Soetens wrote: > At least, not for Orocos applications. We've had hard to debug > application segfaults that used just a 'little' bit more than 32k. We > had to raise the stack size to 128k to get reliably through our > application startup. I stem from the old 'mlockall ate my RAM' > generation where we typically reduced stack sizes in order to have > some crumbles left for the heap. But 32k wasn't really what we were > aiming for. > > Maybe we should explicitly document the 32k limit and its limitations > for certain applications...? Again, things have been fixed in 2.5.3 with regard to stack sizes, could you check that you have the same behaviour? As for 32KiB, it is only a default stack size, it is only reasonable in the sense that 2MiB is unreasonable on a low-end system. 32KiB was picked because it allows printf to work. Now, whatever stack size we choose, there will be applications which need more, this does not really make the default unreasonable. > PS: can anyone allow 'sspr' (=me) to edit/add stuff on the wiki ? Looks like you passed an incorrect mail address for this account, so it could not be verified, did you fix this? -- Gilles.