Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 7 May 2003 15:22:23 -0400 (EDT) | From | "Richard B. Johnson" <> | Subject | Re: top stack (l)users for 2.5.69 |
| |
On Wed, 7 May 2003, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2003, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > > > No, No. That is a process stack. Every process has it's own, entirely > > seperate stack. This stack is used only in user mode. The kernel has > > it's own stack. Every time you switch to kernel mode either by > > calling the kernel or by a hardware interrupt, the kernel's stack > > is used. > > Is it your understanding that does not exist a per task kernel stack ? >
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.
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/
|  |