Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*8k\s+stacks\s+\-\s+where\s+did\s+they\s+go\?\s*$/: 21 ]

Total 21 documents matching your query.

1. 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 15:27:35 -0500 (EST)
I'm about to build a 2.6.11.8 kernel on EM64T hardware, and i can't, for the life of me, find the 8K stacks option. Or more accurately, I can't find CONFIG_4KSTACKS to set it to N. Did this option ge
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00031.html (7,520 bytes)

2. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 16:39:14 -0500
Nope, that's just an i386 config option. It doesn't exist on x86_64. -- Nate Straz nstraz@xxxxxxx sgi, inc http://www.sgi.com/ Linux Test Project http://ltp.sf.net/
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00032.html (8,722 bytes)

3. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 15:53:29 -0500 (EST)
So i get 8k by default on x86_64 ? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00033.html (8,660 bytes)

4. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 15:06:13 -0700
For now x86_64 uses 8K stacks (there has been talk of this changing to 4K stacks eventually in some distros though).
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00034.html (8,191 bytes)

5. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 16:12:46 -0500 (EST)
OK, thanks. I don't suppose you (or anyone else) knows if the 2.6.9-5-smp-x86_64 kernel in RHEL4 is using 8k? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedma
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00035.html (8,867 bytes)

6. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 16:19:04 -0700
AFAIK everyone is usong 8K stacks for x86-64 kernels right now. FWIW x86-64 seems like it probably uses *less* stack space than x86 (quite a bit in some cases) so I wouldn't worry too much at present
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00037.html (8,659 bytes)

7. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 01:20:14 +0200
Why don't you ask RH, who sold you this OS? Best regards Martin -- http://www.tm.oneiros.de
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00039.html (8,718 bytes)

8. 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 15:27:35 -0500 (EST)
I'm about to build a 2.6.11.8 kernel on EM64T hardware, and i can't, for the life of me, find the 8K stacks option. Or more accurately, I can't find CONFIG_4KSTACKS to set it to N. Did this option ge
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00232.html (7,520 bytes)

9. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 16:39:14 -0500
Nope, that's just an i386 config option. It doesn't exist on x86_64. -- Nate Straz nstraz@xxxxxxx sgi, inc http://www.sgi.com/ Linux Test Project http://ltp.sf.net/
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00233.html (8,722 bytes)

10. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: az@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 15:53:29 -0500 (EST)
So i get 8k by default on x86_64 ? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00234.html (8,660 bytes)

11. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 15:06:13 -0700
For now x86_64 uses 8K stacks (there has been talk of this changing to 4K stacks eventually in some distros though).
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00235.html (8,191 bytes)

12. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: w@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 16:12:46 -0500 (EST)
OK, thanks. I don't suppose you (or anyone else) knows if the 2.6.9-5-smp-x86_64 kernel in RHEL4 is using 8k? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedma
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00236.html (8,867 bytes)

13. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: gc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 16:19:04 -0700
AFAIK everyone is usong 8K stacks for x86-64 kernels right now. FWIW x86-64 seems like it probably uses *less* stack space than x86 (quite a bit in some cases) so I wouldn't worry too much at present
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00238.html (8,659 bytes)

14. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: w@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 01:20:14 +0200
Why don't you ask RH, who sold you this OS? Best regards Martin -- http://www.tm.oneiros.de
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00240.html (8,718 bytes)

15. 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: Net Llama! <netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 15:27:35 -0500 (EST)
I'm about to build a 2.6.11.8 kernel on EM64T hardware, and i can't, for the life of me, find the 8K stacks option. Or more accurately, I can't find CONFIG_4KSTACKS to set it to N. Did this option ge
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00433.html (7,535 bytes)

16. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Straz <nstraz@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 16:39:14 -0500
Nope, that's just an i386 config option. It doesn't exist on x86_64. -- Nate Straz nstraz@xxxxxxx sgi, inc http://www.sgi.com/ Linux Test Project http://ltp.sf.net/
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00434.html (8,834 bytes)

17. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: Net Llama! <netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 15:53:29 -0500 (EST)
So i get 8k by default on x86_64 ? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00435.html (8,776 bytes)

18. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 15:06:13 -0700
For now x86_64 uses 8K stacks (there has been talk of this changing to 4K stacks eventually in some distros though).
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00436.html (8,344 bytes)

19. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: Net Llama! <netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 16:12:46 -0500 (EST)
OK, thanks. I don't suppose you (or anyone else) knows if the 2.6.9-5-smp-x86_64 kernel in RHEL4 is using 8k? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedma
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00437.html (9,054 bytes)

20. Re: 8k stacks - where did they go? (score: 1)
Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 16:19:04 -0700
AFAIK everyone is usong 8K stacks for x86-64 kernels right now. FWIW x86-64 seems like it probably uses *less* stack space than x86 (quite a bit in some cases) so I wouldn't worry too much at present
/archives/xfs/2005-05/msg00439.html (8,883 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu