[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080420133857.GB26536@1wt.eu>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:38:57 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: x86: 4kstacks default
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 09:27:32AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >
> >What would really help would be to have 8k stacks with the lower page
> >causing a fault and print a stack trace upon first access. That way,
> >the safe setting would still report us useful information without
> >putting users into trouble.
> ..
>
> That's the best suggestion from this thread, by far!
> Can you produce a patch for 2.6.26 for this?
Unfortunately, I can't. I wouldn't know where to start from.
> Or perhaps someone else here, with the right code familiarity, could?
I hope so.
> Some sort of CONFIG option would likely be wanted to
> either enable/disable this feature, of course.
If we want to migrate to 4k sooner or later, this behaviour would not
need a config option, maybe just a /proc or /sys tunable to disable
the warning. Config would be either (4k + risk of crash) or (8k + warning).
The *real* issue is to decide whether we need/want 4k or not, because
I think we're still discussing the subject for no reason, as usual...
Willy
--
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