From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758144AbYDTLt0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:49:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752034AbYDTLtM (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:49:12 -0400 Received: from smtp-out03.alice-dsl.net ([88.44.63.5]:35277 "EHLO smtp-out03.alice-dsl.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751297AbYDTLtJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:49:09 -0400 To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Adrian Bunk , Oliver Pinter , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Arjan van de Ven , Thomas Gleixner , Christoph Hellwig , David Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: x86: 4kstacks default From: Andi Kleen References: <200804181737.m3IHbabI010051@hera.kernel.org> <20080418142934.38ce6bf4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080419142329.GA5339@elte.hu> <6101e8c40804190735g17f1e0bj25c2bc0e2a6eac26@mail.gmail.com> <20080419151911.GB1595@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <480AA2B9.10305__23983.3358479247$1208657639$gmane$org@sandeen.net> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:48:40 +0200 In-Reply-To: <480AA2B9.10305__23983.3358479247$1208657639$gmane$org@sandeen.net> (Eric Sandeen's message of "Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:56:09 -0500") Message-ID: <87abjobvc7.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Apr 2008 11:41:52.0779 (UTC) FILETIME=[87135DB0:01C8A2DB] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Eric Sandeen writes: > Adrian Bunk wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 04:35:31PM +0200, Oliver Pinter wrote: >>> ... >>> with the older kernel is typical: xfs+nfs+4k stack(+lvm) >> >> Does anyone still experience problems with 2.6.25? > > There are always problems. You can always come up with something that > will crash in 4k, IMHO. But what are a few crashes compared against the ability to run 50000 kernel threads on a 32bit machine? Something has to give in the aim for useless checkbox numbers after all. -Andi