Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:30:00 +0100 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: [2.6 patch] i386: always use 4k stacks |
| |
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:00:13PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote: > > > > This patch was already sent on: > > - 11 Dec 2005 > > - 5 Dec 2005 > > - 30 Nov 2005 > > - 23 Nov 2005 > > - 14 Nov 2005 > > Sigh. I saw the volume of email last time and though "gee, glad I wasn't > cc'ed on that lot".
If you substract the "this breaks my binary-only M$ Windows driver" emails there's not much volume left.
> Supporting 8k stacks is a small amount of code and nobody has seen a need > to make changes in there for quite a long time. So there's little cost to > keeping the existing code. > > And the existing code is useful: > > a) people can enable it to confirm that their weird crash was due to a > stack overflow. > > b) If I was going to put together a maximally-stable kernel for a > complex server machine, I'd select 8k stacks. We're still just too > squeezy, and we've had too many relatively-recent overflows, and there > are still some really deep callpaths in there.
a1) People turn off 4k stacks and never report the problem / noone really debugs and fixes the reported problem.
Me threatening people with enabling 4k stacks for everyone already resulted in several fixes.
An how many weird crashes with _different_ causes have you seen? It could be that there are only _very_ few problems that noone really debugs brcause disabling 4k stacks fixes the issue.
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
- 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/
| |