Re: top stack (l)users for 2.5.69

Davide Libenzi
2003-05-07T18:21:23Z

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN, Size: 1263 bytes --]

On Wed, 7 May 2003, [iso-8859-1] Jörn Engel wrote:

> I'm not sure if I got you wrong, or vice versa. Either way, some
> definitions first.
> Process Stack == the traditional per-process kernel stack
> Interrupt Stack == a dedicated per-CPU stack for interrupts only
> CPU Stack == all kernel data on a per-CPU stack
>
> Not for anything would I want a CPU Stack. At first thought, this is
> impossible, but in reality it is just ugly beyond anything I could
> bear.
>
> An Interrupt Stack is a very good thing. I know PPC machines with 125
> Interrupt lines (3 for cascading) that could theoretically all happen
> at once. That alone demands for a stack size well above 8k and having
> this per process is just a bad design. But that is another issue.
>
> The real Process Stack without the interrupt overhead should not need
> to be bigger than 4k. It currently is for all platforms I know about,
> s390 has even 16k. This is the point of my regular allyesconfig
> compilations and postings.
>
> Do you still disagree? Then I must have misread your mail.

It was not really clear you were talking about interrupts stack, that are
a feasible thing. Even though, I'd not feel confident going down to 4k,
looking at the post that started this thread.

- Davide