From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752150AbYKRFk1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:40:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750752AbYKRFkT (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:40:19 -0500 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:55101 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750741AbYKRFkS (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:40:18 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:40:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <20081117.214018.238557661.davem@davemloft.net> To: paulus@samba.org Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: Large stack usage in fs code (especially for PPC64) From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <18722.10784.719186.434130@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <18722.10784.719186.434130@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.1 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Paul Mackerras Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:36:16 +1100 > Steven Rostedt writes: > > > By-the-way, my box has been running stable ever since I switched to > > CONFIG_IRQSTACKS. > > Great. We probably should remove the config option and just always > use irq stacks. That's what I did from the start on sparc64 when I added irqstacks support. It's pretty stupid to make it optional when we know there are failure cases. For example, is XFS dependant on IRQSTACKS on x86? It should be, or even more so XFS and NFS both being enabled at the same time :-)