[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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.

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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.101 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site