[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: x86: 4kstacks default
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:16:22 +0200
Andi Kleen <> wrote:

> Arjan van de Ven <> writes:
> >
> > it is you who keeps putting up the 50k argument.
> See the links I posted and quote in an earlier message up the thread
> if you don't remember what you wrote yourself.
> I originally only hold up the fragmentation argument (or rather only
> argued against it), until I was corrected by both Ingo and you in the
> earlier thread and you both insisted that 50k threads were the real
> reason'd'etre for 4k stacks.
> You're saying that was wrong and the fragmentation issue was really
> the real reason for 4k stacks? If both you and Ingo can agree on that
> I would be happy to forget the 50k threads :)

I already corrected you misquoting/misunderstanding me; should I do this again?

> > What I'm talking about is in the 10k to 20k range; and that is
> > actual workloads by real customers.
> On a 32bit kernel?
> My estimate is that you need around 32k for a functional blocked
> thread in a network server (8k + 2*4k for poll with large fd table
> and wait queues + some pinned dentries and inodes + misc other
> stuff). With 20k you're 625MB into your lowmem which leaves about
> 200MB left on a 3:1 system with 16GB (and ~128MB mem_map). That
> might work for some time, but I expect it will fall over at some
> point because there is just too much pinned lowmem and not enough
> left for other stuff (like networking buffers etc.)
> 10k sounds more doable. But again do 4k more or less make
> a big difference with the other thread overhead? I don't think so.

no but the other ones are order 0..

If you want to reach me at my work email, use
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-21 07:57    [W:0.125 / U:27.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site