From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764685AbYDPN7S (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:59:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753087AbYDPN7J (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:59:09 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:40185 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753353AbYDPN7I (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:59:08 -0400 Message-ID: <48060625.4040509@firstfloor.org> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:59:01 +0200 From: Andi Kleen User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20060911) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arjan van de Ven CC: Ingo Molnar , Denys Vlasenko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Does process need to have a kernel-side stack all the time? References: <200804141547.57719.vda.linux@googlemail.com> <87hce4uya8.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20080416124728.GA5050@elte.hu> <20080416065451.78329e12@laptopd505.fenrus.org> In-Reply-To: <20080416065451.78329e12@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > well that and the fact that RH had customers who had major issues at fewer threads > with 8Kb versus fragmentation. > on 32 bit with a bunch of ram, there's just not enough lowmem around to not have it > fragmented to hell and back. 2.6 VM has much more aggressive defrag heuristics than 2.4. That is what I meant with likely obsolete. -Andi