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

Parag Warudkar
2005-12-20T19:08:39Z

> Oh, well, one of the larger drawbacks of 4KiB stacks is the inevitable
> flamewar, each time with /less/ data (this round I've seen none) supporting
> the need for larger stacks, into which all kinds of idiots* are suckered.

At the same time, I haven't seen any data showing what we gain by losing the 8K
stack option. Where are the links to posts where people are claiming en masse
that 8K stacks are causing screwups, halting VM development etc.?

If 8K stacks are something that works, is not default, what do we gain by losing
it in total? If people need ndiswrapper (I hate it as much as any one else , but come on
for some people it's the only option) or any other functionality that requires
bigger stack, let them choose it if they are ready to take whatever risks that come with it.

To the ndiswrapper users - Do you guys have any real data showing 4K stacks
result in problems for you? (Since it is dedicated 4K against shared 8K, it
might as well not cause problems.) If you do then it's clear that 8K shared
gives more room than 4k dedicated.

Parag