[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070323122129.555a87fd.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:21:29 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: "linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"dmosberger@...il.com" <dmosberger@...il.com>,
surinder.kumar@...cle.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH][2/2] double stack limit (rfc)
Now, ia64's hard-stack-size (rlimit.max) is sum of register-stack size and
memory-stack size. But soft-stack-size (rlimit.cur) accounitng is not sum..
they are accounted independently. This is inconsistent.
I hear some people says that "When I set stack-size-limit to 32M,
I want to use 32M of memory stack..." and register-stack expansion can
fail because stack is used up by memory-stack.
This patch moves register-stack's base address to lower address.
By this patch, meaning of hard-stack-size can be equal to soft-stack-size and
we can avoid the case "register-backing store cannot be expanded because the
memory stack uses the whole stack".
How about this ?
Signed-Off-By: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Index: linux-2.6.21-rc4/arch/ia64/mm/init.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.21-rc4.orig/arch/ia64/mm/init.c
+++ linux-2.6.21-rc4/arch/ia64/mm/init.c
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ inline void
ia64_set_rbs_bot (void)
{
unsigned long stack_size = current->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_STACK].rlim_max & -16;
-
+ stack_size *= 2;
if (stack_size > MAX_USER_STACK_SIZE)
stack_size = MAX_USER_STACK_SIZE;
current->thread.rbs_bot = PAGE_ALIGN(current->mm->start_stack - stack_size);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists