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

Parag Warudkar
2005-12-19T19:10:29Z

On Dec 19, 2005, at 12:43 PM, Dumitru Ciobarcianu wrote:

> Sloppy coding ? As long you don't have the source you can't be sure.
> Point to an open source (and not tainting by just reading it) code
> which
> uses >4k+IRQstack stacks.
>

First you gotta understand that I am not arguing to take away the 4K
stacks - I am arguing about keeping both options and defaulting to 4K.

How do you determine how much stack space a piece of code is going to
need without knowing what functionality it needs to build? There
might be deeply nested, long call chains etc. which certain types of
functionality might warrant. How do you prove "4K otta be enough
stack for everyone doing everything", on what basis? (Reminds me of
old DOS days and the famous statement relating to 640K)

> Millions of flyes eat shit.
> It must be a reason for having it...
>

Yeah, compare that same thing to FORCING 4K stacks - it sounds as
illogical as the above statement.

No one is answering what are we gaining from removing the 8K stack
"_option_" - few bytes of code size, reason to not fix the VM, for
fun, for screwing over? Why not let people choose 8K if they need it?

Parag