[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <480B4EA1.5070305@sandeen.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:09:37 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To: Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
CC: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, 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
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?
> Or perhaps someone else here, with the right code familiarity, could?
>
> Some sort of CONFIG option would likely be wanted to
> either enable/disable this feature, of course.
Changing the default warning threshold is easy, it's just a #define.
Although setting it too low would spam syslogs on some setups.
When I was trying to cram stuff into 4k in the past, I had a patch which
added a sysctl to dynamically change the warning threshold, and
optionally BUG() when I hit it for crash analysis. It was good for
debugging, at least. If something along those lines is desired, I could
resurrect it.
-Eric
--
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