Re: [2.6 patch] i386: always use 4k stacks

Bodo Eggert
2005-12-18T06:06:30Z

Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:

> I'm with you that we need a safety net, but I don't see a problem with
> this being between 3kB and 4kB. The goal should be to _never_ use more
> than 3kB stack having a 1kB safety net.
>
> And in my experience, many stack problems don't come from code getting
> more complex but from people allocating 1kB structs or arrays of
> > 2k chars on the stack. In these cases, the code has to be fixed and
> "make checkstack" makes it easy to find such cases.
>
> And as a data point, my count of bug reports for problems with in-kernel
> code with 4k stacks after Neil's patch went into -mm is still at 0.

Would you run a desktop with an nfs server on xfs on lvm on dm on SCSI?
Or a productive server on -mm?

IMO it's OK to push 4K stacks in -mm, but one week of no error reports from
a few testers don't make a reliable system.

[...]

> Unfortunately, "is not really something to encourage" doesn'a make
> "happens in real-life applications" impossible...

The same applies to using kernel stack. Therefore I'll want to choose
a bigger stack for my server, which runs less than 100 processes.
--
Ich danke GMX dafür, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF
verbreiteten Lügen zu sabotieren.