[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wsmdf54j.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 11:05:16 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mingo@...hat.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: x86: 8K stacks by default
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
>
> The plan is to remove "this overflows my stack here and now" technical
> argument: we'll add the stack-footprint measurement tracing plugin from
> -rt to ftrace and get that upstream. In -rt's tracer we can measure,
> track and trace the exact worst-case stack footprint of a system, since
> bootup. It relies on the function tracer which looks at the current
> stack footprint at every given moment. It's not a statistical sample, it
> tracks the true worst-case stack footprint.
I had such a measurement patch a long time ago for 2.4 x86-64
(ftp://ftp.x86-64.org/pub/linux-x86_64/debug/stackcheck-1)
But the problem today is the same as it was back then: you can't
really get the production users with the nasty workloads who actually
trigger the difficult overflows to run something like this which has
quite high runtime overhead.
> _Then_ there can be no real technical argument about making the more
> robust 4K stacks the default.
You typoed: s/more/less/
-Andi
P.S. I agree with Alan that the interrupt stacks should be always enabled even
with 8k stacks.
--
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