| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:26:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, travis@....com Subject: Re: [14/18] Configure stack size On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thursday 04 October 2007 05:59, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > Make the stack size configurable now that we can fallback to vmalloc if > > necessary. SGI NUMA configurations may need more stack because cpumasks > > and nodemasks are at times kept on the stack. With the coming 16k cpu > > support > > Hmm, I was told 512 byte cpumasks for x86 earlier. Why is this suddenly 2K? 512 is for the default 4k cpu configuration that should be enough for most purposes. The hardware maximum is 16k and we need at least a kernel config option that covers the potential stack size issues. > 2K is too much imho. If you really want to go that big you have > to look in allocating them all separately imho. But messing > with the stack TLB entries and risking more TLB misses > is not a good idea. These machines have very large amounts of memory (up to the maximum addressable memory of an x86_64 cpu). The fallback is as good as impossible. If you get into fallback then we are likely already swapping and doing other bad placement things. We typically tune the loads to avoid this. - 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