[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YxoTdxk772vneG53@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2022 18:08:23 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: guoren@...nel.org
Cc: arnd@...db.de, palmer@...osinc.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, luto@...nel.org, conor.dooley@...rochip.com,
heiko@...ech.de, jszhang@...nel.org, lazyparser@...il.com,
falcon@...ylab.org, chenhuacai@...nel.org, apatel@...tanamicro.com,
atishp@...shpatra.org, palmer@...belt.com,
paul.walmsley@...ive.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Guo Ren <guoren@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 6/8] riscv: Support HAVE_IRQ_EXIT_ON_IRQ_STACK
On 2022-09-07 22:25:04 [-0400], guoren@...nel.org wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> index a07bb3b73b5b..a8a12b4ba1a9 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> @@ -433,6 +433,14 @@ config FPU
>
> If you don't know what to do here, say Y.
>
> +config IRQ_STACKS
> + bool "Independent irq stacks"
> + default y
> + select HAVE_IRQ_EXIT_ON_IRQ_STACK
> + help
> + Add independent irq stacks for percpu to prevent kernel stack overflows.
> + We may save some memory footprint by disabling IRQ_STACKS.
Do you really think that it is needed to save memory here? Avoiding
stack overflows in deep call chains is probably more important than
saving ~8KiB per CPU.
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists