Messages in this thread | | | From | "Hua Zhong" <> | Subject | RE: top stack (l)users for 2.5.69 | Date | Wed, 7 May 2003 12:39:28 -0700 |
| |
> It is my understanding that there is one kernel stack. If there > is a stack allocated for some "transition", and I guess there > may be, because of the mail I'm getting, then it has absolutely > no purpose whatsoever and is wasted valuable non-paged RAM.
I think your understanding is wrong. Each process has its own kernel stack allocated together with the task_struct in a 8K chunk. At least for 2.4 it is. I think interrupt handler also uses the current kernel stack.
> The reason why system-call parameters are passed in registers > is so that we didn't have the overhead of copying stuff from a > user stack to a kernel stack. > > Does anybody know (not guess) if this was stuff added for the > new non-interrupt 0x80 syscall code? I want to know how a > simple kernel got corrupted into this twisted thing. > > Anybody who has a copy of any of the Intel manuals since '386 > knows that there needs to be only one kernel stack. > > Cheers, > Dick Johnson > Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips). > Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |