[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <480B55DF.90502@sandeen.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:40:31 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
CC: Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>, 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
Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 09:09:37AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I thought it was checked only at a few places (eg: during irqs). If so,
> maybe it can miss some call chains ?
Ah, ok I skimmed your first suggestion too quickly. 100% coverage
reports on the initial access to the 2nd 4k that way would be nice.
Well, it would be nice if we all really wanted 4k stacks some day... :)
-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