[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5386664A.5060304@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 15:42:18 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
mst@...hat.com, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] x86_64: expand kernel stack to 16K
On 05/28/2014 03:11 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 07:23:23AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> We tried for 4K on x86-64, too, for b quite a while as I recall.
>> The kernel stack is a one of the main costs for a thread. I would
>> like to decouple struct thread_info from the kernel stack (PJ
>> Waskewicz was working on that before he left Intel) but that
>> doesn't buy us all that much.
>>
>> 8K additional per thread is a huge hit. XFS has indeed always
>> been a canary, or troublespot, I suspect because it originally
>> came from another kernel where this was not an optimization
>> target.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Always blame XFS for stack usage problems.
>
> Even when the reported problem is from IO to an ext4 filesystem.
>
You were the one calling it a canary.
-hpa
--
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