From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
To: Linda Walsh <lkml@tlinx.org>
Cc: Paulo Marques <pmarques@grupopie.com>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>,
Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Save 320K on production machines?
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:43:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060331094315.GB3893@stusta.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <442C4ECF.3080505@tlinx.org>
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 01:34:07PM -0800, Linda Walsh wrote:
>...
> If I "doubled" my stack back to 8K, that would lower the "random
> probability" of hitting a stack limit, but right now, it seems like
> amount of stack "needed" is nearly guesswork. Sigh. Having my
> kernel fairly static and minimalistic (no unused modules; no loadable
> modules, etc) I might only "need" 3K.
Things like unused modules or loadable module support should have more
or less zero impact on stack usage.
> 1) It would be nice if a "stack usage" option could be turned on
> that would do some sort of run-time bounds checking that could
> display the max-stack used "so far" in "/proc".
The -rt kernel contains something like this.
> 2) How difficult would it be to place kernel stack in a "pageable" pool
> where the limit of valid data in a 4K page is only 3.5K - then
> when a kernel routine tries to exceed the stack boundary, it takes a
> page fault where a "note" could be logged that more stack was "needed",
> then automatically map another 4K page into the stack and return to
> interrupted routine.
>
> It sounds a bit strange -- the kernel having to call another part of
> the kernel to handle a pagefault within the kernel, but perhaps there
> could be another level of "partitioning" w/in kernel space that would
> allow the non-paging part of the kernel to be paged in/out in a similar
> way to user code.
>...
This has been discussed to death, and the consensus was that code
resulting in a too high stack usage should be fixed.
If you find any stack problems with 4k stacks and the automatically
enabled unit-at-a-time when using gcc 4.x in kernel 2.6.16-mm2, please
send a bug report.
Regarding unit-at-a-time with gcc 3.x, it works most time for most
people, but it's completely unsupported. If you want to use
unit-at-a-time on i386, please use gcc 4.x.
> -l
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-31 9:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-26 8:31 Save 320K on production machines? Linda Walsh
2006-03-26 9:24 ` Jan Engelhardt
2006-03-26 10:06 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-03-27 10:22 ` Linda Walsh
2006-03-27 11:36 ` Paulo Marques
2006-03-30 21:34 ` Linda Walsh
2006-03-31 9:43 ` Adrian Bunk [this message]
2006-03-31 9:48 ` Jörn Engel
2006-03-26 10:39 ` Andre Tomt
2006-03-27 10:05 ` Linda Walsh
2006-03-28 14:29 ` Jan Engelhardt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060331094315.GB3893@stusta.de \
--to=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkml@tlinx.org \
--cc=pmarques@grupopie.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox