| 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: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:34:09 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Does process need to have a kernel-side stack all the time? On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:20:43 +0200 Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com> wrote: > > And my "random thought" occurred along the lines "Ingo once ran > 100000 threads and then ran out of space for stack... wait a minute! > Why every single one of those threads need to have a stack at the > same time? They sure as hell can't actively use more than NR_CPUS > stacks at once!". > > Pity it wouldn't work. you could make it work ... sort of. That is, you can deal with the case with apps that sleep on select/poll/sleep (which is the majority) by starting out at a small stack (say 512 bytes), and then in the syscall code switch to a 4Kb stack for all but these 3 "known to not go deep but normal sleepers" syscalls. I doubt it's worth the complexity, but it very likely could be made to work.... it's just going to get very messy (how to deal with "current" is just the start of the messyness) -- 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