Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Jul 1998 07:16:11 +0200 | From | ak@muc ... | Subject | Re: Strange interrupt behaviour |
| |
On Sun, Jul 12, 1998 at 07:00:52AM +0200, Linus Torvalds wrote: > The fact that the "struct task_struct" is smaller than 4kB and the usable > stack area grew is a side effect, it's not the reason. 2.1.x does not need > any more stack than 2.0.x needed.
Ok, what do you think about the indirect-current proposal then? I can supply a prototype-patch.
> > vmalloc() is not acceptable. > > Getting 8kB allocations shouldn't be too hard - it's just that the current > mm/page_alloc.c gives up a bit too easily as a backlash against it never > giving up at all in certain 2.1.x kernels. It's a balancing issue, and > getting rid of the 8kB allocation is not the answer.
Maybe it is a "balancing issue" on machines with 128MB of memory, but on 8MB machines I see no way to get this to work without making it unacceptable slow or waste lots of memory (barring radical solutions like replacing the buddy page allocator with something that is less prone to fragmentation)
-Andi
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |