[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: x86: 4kstacks default
Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Sun, 20 April 2008 16:19:29 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Only if you believe that 4K stack pages are a worthy goal.
>> As far as I can figure out they are not. They might have been
>> a worthy goal on crappy 2.4 VMs, but these times are long gone.
>> The "saving memory on embedded" argument also does not
>> quite convince me, it is unclear if that is really
>> a significant amount of memory on these systems and if that
>> couldn't be addressed better (e.g. in running generally
>> less kernel threads). I don't have numbers on this,
>> but then the people who made this argument didn't have any
>> either :)
> It is not uncommon for embedded systems to be designed around 16MiB.

But these are SoC systems. Do they really run x86?
(note we're talking about an x86 default option here)

Also I suspect in a true 16MB system you have to strip down
everything kernel side so much that you're pretty much outside
the "validated by testers" realm that Adrian cares about.

> When dealing in those dimensions, savings of 100k are substantial. In
> some causes they may be the difference between 16MiB or 32MiB, which
> translates to manufacturing costs. In others it simply means that the
> system can cache

If you need the stack you don't have any less cache foot print.
If you don't need it you don't have any either.

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: 2008-04-20 19:21    [W:0.093 / U:3.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site