Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:26:42PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Alan Cox <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > If this still occurs for some
> > > combinations then the fix would be 8K + 4K IRQ stack, not just to use 8K
> > > stack
> >
> > Yes i've been thinking for some time doing that would be a good idea.
>
> Yes, the non-irqstack case should definitively go away. And 8k
> kernel stacks isn't that little given how much most 64bit architectures
> have.
Actually looking at the code it would need some fixes first:
/*
* These should really be __section__(".bss.page_aligned") as well, but
* gcc's 3.0 and earlier don't handle that correctly.
*/
static char softirq_stack[NR_CPUS * THREAD_SIZE]
__attribute__((__aligned__(THREAD_SIZE)));
static char hardirq_stack[NR_CPUS * THREAD_SIZE]
__attribute__((__aligned__(THREAD_SIZE)));
With 8K stacks and NR_CPUS==128 that would be 2MB statically reserved. Yuck.
Really needs to be dynamically allocated. I'll take a look once the .22
big merge is done.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
