[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E71E3520-FCE5-4DAE-969D-F59F6A331611@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 22:02:46 +0900
From: Jungseok Lee <jungseoklee85@...il.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@...s.arm.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"barami97@...il.com" <barami97@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: Implement vmalloc based thread_info allocator
On May 26, 2015, at 1:47 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On 25 May 2015, at 13:01, Jungseok Lee <jungseoklee85@...il.com> wrote:
>
>>> Could the stack size be reduced to 8KB perhaps?
>>
>> I guess probably not.
>>
>> A commit, 845ad05e, says that 8KB is not enough to cover SpecWeb benchmark.
>
> We could go back to 8KB stacks if we implement support for separate IRQ
> stack on arm64. It's not too complicated, we would have to use SP0 for (kernel) threads
> and SP1 for IRQ handlers.
Definitely interesting.
It looks like there are two options based on discussion.
1) Reduce the stack size with separate IRQ stack scheme
2) Figure out a generic anti-fragmentation solution
Do I miss anything?
I am still not sure about the first scheme as reviewing Minchan's findings repeatedly,
but I agree that the item should be worked actively.
Best Regards
Jungseok Lee--
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