public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bill Pringlemeir <bpringle@sympatico.ca>
To: Richard Gooch <rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca>
Cc: aki.jain@stanford.edu (Akash Jain),
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, su.class.cs99q@nntp.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/devfs/base.c
Date: 04 Jun 2001 15:26:25 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <m2elt011y6.fsf@sympatico.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0106031652090.32451-100000@penguin.transmeta.com> <E156o6c-0005AB-00@the-village.bc.nu> <200106040707.f5477ET11421@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca>
In-Reply-To: Richard Gooch's message of "Mon, 4 Jun 2001 01:07:14 -0600"

>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Gooch <rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca> writes:
[snip]
 > I guess we should ask the question as to what's an
 > acceptable usage.  Theoretically, any amount could pose a
 > problem, but that's hardly a useful position to work

There was a discussion on comp.arch.embedded about bounded stack use.
It is fairly easy to calculate the stack usage for call trees, but
much more difficult for `DAGs'.  Ie, a recursive functions etc.  I
don't know about the policy on recursion in the kernel, but I think it
would be bad.

Perhaps the checker could be modified to keep track of the call tree
and find the largest value used in the tree.  Each function will have
a maximum, to which you should add the interrupt handling overhead,
which would be calculated in a similar way.  This will work if you do
not allow re-entrant interrupts and you do not have any `cycles' in the
function call hierarchies.

hth,
Bill Pringlemeir.



  reply	other threads:[~2001-06-04 19:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-05-27 10:12 [PATCH] fs/devfs/base.c Akash Jain
2001-05-27 13:21 ` Richard Gooch
2001-05-28 14:43   ` Maximum size of automatic allocation? (was: [PATCH] fs/devfs/base.c) Daniel Phillips
2001-06-03 23:55   ` [PATCH] fs/devfs/base.c Linus Torvalds
2001-06-04  0:03     ` Richard Gooch
2001-06-04  6:44     ` Alan Cox
2001-06-04  7:07       ` Richard Gooch
2001-06-04 19:26         ` Bill Pringlemeir [this message]
2001-06-04 19:39           ` Kernel Stack usage [was: [PATCH] fs/devfs/base.c] Bill Pringlemeir
2001-06-05  6:10           ` [PATCH] fs/devfs/base.c H. Peter Anvin
2001-06-05  6:56             ` Alan Cox
2001-06-05 11:37               ` Andrew Morton
2001-06-05 21:38               ` Pavel Machek
2001-06-04 10:09       ` Linus Torvalds
2001-06-05  1:41       ` Dawson R Engler
2001-06-05  8:49       ` Ingo Molnar
2001-06-04 20:15     ` Daniel Phillips
2001-06-05  4:24       ` Paul Mackerras

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=m2elt011y6.fsf@sympatico.ca \
    --to=bpringle@sympatico.ca \
    --cc=aki.jain@stanford.edu \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca \
    --cc=su.class.cs99q@nntp.stanford.edu \
    /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