xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [2.6 patch] let 4KSTACKS depend on EXPERIMENTAL and XFS on 4KSTACKS=

To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] let 4KSTACKS depend on EXPERIMENTAL and XFS on 4KSTACKS=n
From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:44:12 -0700
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@xxxxxxxxxx>, Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>, "Jeffrey E. Hundstad" <jeffrey.hundstad@xxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, Cahya Wirawan <cwirawan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040729211137.GC23589@fs.tum.de>
References: <20040720114418.GH21918@email.archlab.tuwien.ac.at> <40FD0A61.1040503@xfs.org> <40FD2E99.20707@mnsu.edu> <20040720195012.GN14733@fs.tum.de> <20040729060900.GA1946@frodo> <20040729114219.GN2349@fs.tum.de> <1091101612.2792.8.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <20040729211137.GC23589@fs.tum.de>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 11:11:37PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> There are reports of breakages with 4kb stacks in 2.6, but AFAIK no
> similar reports for 2.4 .

2.4.x uses the stack(s) differently than 2.6.x so it will usually be
harder (but not impossible) to break and less easy to detect.

I believe what Arjan is saying that that 2.4.x effectively really only
has 4K of safely usable stack anyhow (we have some on-stack allocated
data and interrupts use the same stack).

Also, FWIW I do think there were been reports of problems in 2.4.x
that looked like they might be stack-size related (things dying
horribly after an interrupt for example).


  --cw


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