[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: x86: 4kstacks default
On Sun, 20 April 2008 19:19:26 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 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.

Maybe. I merely showed that embedded people (not me) have good reasons
to care about small stacks. Whether they care enough to actually spend
work on it - doubtful.

> > 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.

This part I don't understand.


You ain't got no problem, Jules. I'm on the motherfucker. Go back in
there, chill them niggers out and wait for the Wolf, who should be
coming directly.
-- Marsellus Wallace
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 19:47    [W:0.114 / U:1.904 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site