[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47387214.2010200@checkpoint.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:32:36 +0200
From: Yoav Artzi <yoavar@...ckpoint.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PAGE_SIZE on 64bit and 32bit machines
Well, since the size of the kernel stack is one page, I figured it will
grow when switching to 64-bit, because some of the types grow and a
similar flow/stack will be bigger in 64-bit in comparison to 32-bit.
Keeping the page size at 4kb and so keeping the stack at 4kb is a bit
dangerous. Isn't it?
I know that using one page for a kernel stack is a optional feature, but:
a) It's a good feature
b) It's already used by major distros, e.g. Red Hat
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: PAGE_SIZE on 64bit and 32bit machines
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To: Yoav Artzi <yoavar@...ckpoint.com>
Date: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:14:17 PM
> On 11/12/2007 03:39 PM, Yoav Artzi wrote:
>
>> According to my knowledge the PAGE_SIZE on 32bit architectures in 4KB.
>> Logically, the PAGE_SIZE on 64bit architectures should be 8KB. That's at
>> least the way I understand it. However, looking at the kernel code of
>> x86_64, I see the PAGE_SIZE is 4KB.
>>
>
> Yes, it stood unchanged, the only difference is 4-level page tables.
>
>
>> Can anyone explain to me what am I missing here?
>>
>
> What led you to that it must be 8k?
>
> regards,
>
-
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