[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55EDB5FB.8060800@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2015 17:06:19 +0100
From: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To: Jungseok Lee <jungseoklee85@...il.com>
CC: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: kernel: Use a separate stack for irq interrupts.
On 07/09/15 16:48, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2015, at 11:36 PM, James Morse wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
>> Having to handle interrupts on top of an existing kernel stack means the
>> kernel stack must be large enough to accomodate both the maximum kernel
>> usage, and the maximum irq handler usage. Switching to a different stack
>> when processing irqs allows us to make the stack size smaller.
>>
>> Maximum kernel stack usage (running ltp and generating usb+ethernet
>> interrupts) was 7256 bytes. With this patch, the same workload gives
>> a maximum stack usage of 5816 bytes.
>
> I'd like to know how to measure the max stack depth.
> AFAIK, a stack tracer on ftrace does not work well. Did you dump a stack
> region and find or track down an untouched region?
I enabled the 'Trace max stack' option under menuconfig 'Kernel Hacking' ->
'Tracers', then looked in debugfs:/tracing/stack_max_size.
What problems did you encounter?
(I may be missing something...)
Thanks,
James
--
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