![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
* Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org> wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 16. November 2005 09:03 schrieb Arjan van de Ven: > > * less CPU cache footprint due to interrupt stacks > > - interrupt stacks are per cpu now instead of borrowing the per > > thread stack space; this both has less impact on the caches, and > > has more cache hits; the per cpu stack will be in cache more than > > the previously scattered bits and pieces > > * more stack space is available for interrupts compared to 2.4 kernels > > - in 2.4 kernels only 2Kb was available for interrupt context (to > > keep 4K available for user context). With complex softirqs such as > > PPP and firewall rules and nested interrupts this wasn't always > > enough. Compared to 2.6-with-8Kstacks is a bit harder; there is > > 2Kb extra available there compared to 2.4 and arguably some of that > > extra is for interrupts. > > This is due to having interrupt stacks. Is there any reason not to > have 8K task stacks and per CPU interrupt stacks? yes, all the other arguments you snipped :) Arjan wrote 4K+4K stacks for Fedora almost 2 years ago, and the patch has a good track record. Here's some more background info about 4K+4K stacks: http://lwn.net/Articles/84583/ http://lwn.net/Articles/150580/ http://lwn.net/Articles/160138/ Ingo - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-11-16 10:21 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||