[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Does process need to have a kernel-side stack all the time?
On Wednesday 16 April 2008 14:47, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Andi Kleen <> wrote:
> > Denys Vlasenko <> writes:
> >
> > > A lot of effort went into minimizing of stack usage.
> > > If I understand it correctly, one of the reasons for this
> > > was to be efficient and not have lots of pages
> > > used for stacks when we have a lot of threads
> > > (tens of thousands).
> >
> > Actually the real reason the 4K stacks were introduced IIRC was that
> > the VM is not very good at allocation of order > 0 pages and that only
> > using order 0 and not order 1 in normal operation prevented some
> > stalls.
> no, the primary motivation Arjan and me started working on 4K stacks and
> implemented it was what Denys mentioned: i had a testcase that ran
> 50,000 threads before it ran out of memory - i wanted it to run 100,000
> threads. The improved order-0 behavior was just icing on the cake.

And my "random thought" occurred along the lines "Ingo once ran
100000 threads and then ran out of space for stack... wait a minute!
Why every single one of those threads need to have a stack at the same time?
They sure as hell can't actively use more than NR_CPUS stacks at once!".

Pity it wouldn't work.

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-16 16:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site