Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm with you that we need a safety net, but I don't see a problem with
> this being between 3kB and 4kB. The goal should be to _never_ use more
> than 3kB stack having a 1kB safety net.
>
> And in my experience, many stack problems don't come from code getting
> more complex but from people allocating 1kB structs or arrays of
> > 2k chars on the stack. In these cases, the code has to be fixed and
> "make checkstack" makes it easy to find such cases.
>
> And as a data point, my count of bug reports for problems with in-kernel
> code with 4k stacks after Neil's patch went into -mm is still at 0.
Would you run a desktop with an nfs server on xfs on lvm on dm on SCSI?
Or a productive server on -mm?
IMO it's OK to push 4K stacks in -mm, but one week of no error reports from
a few testers don't make a reliable system.
[...]
> Unfortunately, "is not really something to encourage" doesn'a make
> "happens in real-life applications" impossible...
The same applies to using kernel stack. Therefore I'll want to choose
a bigger stack for my server, which runs less than 100 processes.
--
Ich danke GMX dafür, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF
verbreiteten Lügen zu sabotieren.
-
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]
