[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFycqAw2AqQGv8aTPs_RxyKZqMdoyeSxWRSDk2N-PiBZeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 08:41:00 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, 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 Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:25 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
We could just have the guard page in between the stack and the
thread_info, take a double fault, and then just map it back in on
double fault.
That would give us 8kB of "normal" stack, with a very loud fault - and
then an extra 7kB or so of stack (whatever the size of thread-info is)
- after the first time it traps.
That said, it's still likely a non-production option due to the page
table games we'd have to play at fork/clone time.
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