[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxD=ADreuGpEEr2U1SMJ90U-cJjy7HdenUPmUkQ3GVDQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 08:36:25 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
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 Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Richard Weinberger
<richard.weinberger@...il.com> wrote:
>
> If we raise the stack size on x86_64 to 16k, what about i386?
> Beside of the fact that most of you consider 32bits as dead and must die... ;)
x86-32 doesn't have nearly the same issue, since a large portion of
stack content tends to be pointers and longs. So it's not like it uses
half the stack, but a 32-bit environment does use a lot less stack
than a 64-bit one.
Linus
--
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