| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20080416073110.1a46063f@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:31:10 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Does process need to have a kernel-side stack all the time? On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:59:01 +0200 Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote: > > > well that and the fact that RH had customers who had major issues > > at fewer threads with 8Kb versus fragmentation. > > on 32 bit with a bunch of ram, there's just not enough lowmem > > around to not have it fragmented to hell and back. > > 2.6 VM has much more aggressive defrag heuristics than 2.4. That is > what I meant with likely obsolete. it's a question of very simple math though; both the space and the amount of other pinnings mean you run into a wall. 2.6 is no doubt better, for sure it's better in freeing up memory etc. It just can't be good enough. (just to be clear, customers do run 30k threads workloads on 16Mb machines that also have a sizable inode and dentry cache. you just cannot defragment that to the point that you can use 8k stacks). -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- 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