[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5388A2D9.3080708@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 08:25:13 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
CC: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <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 Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] x86_64: expand kernel stack to 16K
On 05/29/2014 06:34 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> ...
>> "kworker/u24:1 (94) used greatest stack depth: 8K bytes left, it means
>> there is some horrible stack hogger in your kernel. Please report it
>> the LKML and enable stacktrace to investigate who is culprit"
>
> That, however, presumes that a user can reproduce the problem on
> demand. Experience tells me that this is the exception rather than
> the norm for production systems, and so capturing the stack in real
> time is IMO the only useful thing we could add...
>
If we removed struct thread_info from the stack allocation then one
could do a guard page below the stack. Of course, we'd have to use IST
for #PF in that case, which makes it a non-production option.
-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