[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080420174249.GC20694@logfs.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:43:11 +0200
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>,
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, 20 April 2008 19:19:26 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> But these are SoC systems. Do they really run x86?
> (note we're talking about an x86 default option here)
>
> Also I suspect in a true 16MB system you have to strip down
> everything kernel side so much that you're pretty much outside
> the "validated by testers" realm that Adrian cares about.
Maybe. I merely showed that embedded people (not me) have good reasons
to care about small stacks. Whether they care enough to actually spend
work on it - doubtful.
> > When dealing in those dimensions, savings of 100k are substantial. In
> > some causes they may be the difference between 16MiB or 32MiB, which
> > translates to manufacturing costs. In others it simply means that the
> > system can cache
>
> If you need the stack you don't have any less cache foot print.
> If you don't need it you don't have any either.
This part I don't understand.
Jörn
--
You ain't got no problem, Jules. I'm on the motherfucker. Go back in
there, chill them niggers out and wait for the Wolf, who should be
coming directly.
-- Marsellus Wallace
--
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