[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2c0942db0707161553u5d55724u82424b3ffbbd79f7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:53:29 -0700
From: "Ray Lee" <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
To: "Alan Cox" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: "Rene Herman" <rene.herman@...il.com>,
"Bodo Eggert" <7eggert@....de>, "Matt Mackall" <mpm@...enic.com>,
"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>,
"Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"William Lee Irwin III" <wli@...omorphy.com>,
"David Chinner" <dgc@....com>,
"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] 4K stacks default, not a debug thing any more...?
On 7/16/07, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > If at some point one of the pro-4k stacks crowd can prove that all
> > code paths are safe, or introduce another viable alternative (such as
> > Matt's idea for extending the stack dynamically), then removing the 8k
> > stacks option makes sense.
>
> Any x86-32 path unsafe with 4K stacks is almost certainly unsafe with 8K
> stacks because the 8K stacks do not have seperate IRQ stack paths, so you
> have the same space but split. It might be less predictable on 8K stacks
> but it isn't absent.
Understood, but isn't that an argument pro interrupt stacks, rather
than one against 8k? wli has a patch to break out the interrupt stack
feature from the 4k/8k choice.
-
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