On 07/17/2007 12:37 AM, Ray Lee wrote:
On 7/16/07, Rene Herman <[email protected]> wrote:
Seeing as how single-page stacks are much easier on the VM so that
creating those zillion threads should also be faster, at _some_
percentage we get to say "and now to hell with the rest".
This is the core dispute here. Stated differently, I hope you never
design a bridge that I have to drive over.
Correctness first, optimization second. Introducing random and
difficult to trace crashes upon an unsuspecting audience of sysadmins
and users is not a viable option.
Quite. But unfortunately you didn't actually go into the bit on how given
seperate interrupt stacks, available stackspace might not actually _be_ less
after selecting CONFIG_4KSTCKS nor into Fedora and RHEL shipping it already.
If at some point one of the pro-4k stacks crowd can prove that all
code paths are safe
I'll do that the minute you prove the current shared 8K stacks are safe. Do
we have a deal?
or introduce another viable alternative (such as Matt's idea for
extending the stack dynamically), then removing the 8k stacks option
makes sense.
I'm still waiting for larger soft-pages... does anyone in this thread have a
clue on their status?
Rene.
-
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]
