xfs-masters
[Top] [All Lists]

[xfs-masters] Re: [2.6 patch] let 4KSTACKS depend on EXPERIMENTAL and XF

To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [xfs-masters] Re: [2.6 patch] let 4KSTACKS depend on EXPERIMENTAL and XFS on 4KSTACKS=n
From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:58:29 -0700
Cc: "Jeffrey E. Hundstad" <jeffrey.hundstad@xxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, nathans@xxxxxxx, Cahya Wirawan <cwirawan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040720205030.GO14733@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <20040720114418.GH21918@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40FD0A61.1040503@xxxxxxx> <40FD2E99.20707@xxxxxxxx> <20040720195012.GN14733@xxxxxxxxx> <20040720204238.GA3051@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040720205030.GO14733@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 10:50:31PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> 2.6 is a stable kernel series used in production environments.

so is 2.4.x and problems i mentioned can occur there too but are
harder to hit

> The correct solution is to fix XFS (and other problems with 4kb
> stacks if they occur), and my patch is only a short-term workaround.

it's not really a workaround, it just makes the problems harder to hit

a real fix is going to be hard, it's partly the fact there are
insanely long complicated paths and partly the fact for ia32 gcc
spills register space badly and bloats functions (afaik amd64 uses
significantly less stack in some functions)

> 4KSTACKS=n is simply the better tested case, and 4KSTACKS=y uncovers
> some issues you might not want to see in production environments.

neither address the real problem though


  --cw

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>