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

Adrian Bunk
2005-12-18T15:51:08Z

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 01:05:52AM -0500, Parag Warudkar wrote:
>
> On Dec 18, 2005, at 12:43 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> >You can catch the obvious ones, but the really hard ones
> >that only occur under high load in obscure exceptional
> >circumstances with large configurations and suitable nesting you
> >won't.
> >These would be only found at real world users.
>
> Yep, as it all depends on code complexity, some of these cases might
> not be "errors" at all - instead for that kind of functionality they
> might _require_ bigger stacks.

Is this just FUD or can you give an example where this is a real
problem that can't be solved by using kmalloc()?

> If you have 64 bit machines common place and memory a lot cheaper I
> don't see how it is beneficial to force smaller stack sizes without
> giving consideration to the code complexity, architecture and
> requirements.
>...

Note that we are talking about reducing the stack size _by one third_.

Therefore, your point it would make code much more complex sounds
strange.

> Parag

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed