[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Bug #11342] Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c - bisected
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 09:32:13AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 08:35:44PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 01:00:52AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 02:58:30PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > In addition to that, debugging the runaway stack users on 4k tends to be
> > > easier anyways since you end up blowing the stack a lot sooner. On sh
> > > we've had pretty good luck with it, though most of our users are using
> > > fairly deterministic workloads and continually profiling the footprint.
> > > Anything that runs away or uses an insane amount of stack space needs to
> > > be fixed well before that anyways, so catching it sooner is always
> > > preferable. I imagine the same case is true for m68knommu (even sans IRQ
> > > stacks).
> >
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW should give you the same information, and if
> > wanted with an arbitrary limit.
> >
> In some cases, yes. In the CONFIG_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW case the check is
> only performed from do_IRQ(), which is sporadic at best, especially on
> tickless. While it catches some things, it's not a complete solution in
> and of iteslf.
> In addition to this, there are even fewer platforms that support it than
> there are platforms that do 4k stacks. At first glance, it looks like
> it's only m32r, powerpc, sh, x86, and xtensa.

As far as I can see the only architectures that optionally offer 4kB
stacks today are m68knommu, s390, sh and x86.

Did I miss some architectures or is 5 < 4 ;) ?

> Others support the Kconfig
> option, but don't seem to realize that it's not an option that the kernel
> does anything with by itself, and so don't actually do anything (ie,
> FRV).

Unless I miss anything these "others" include only FRV.

> > IMHO there seems to currently be a mismatch between it's maintainance
> > cost and the actual number of users. That's in my opinion the main
> > problem with it, no matter in which direction it gets resolved.
> >
> Perhaps that's true on x86, but in general I take issue with that. On sh
> we've had to do very little maintenance for it and most shipping products
> are using it today (at least on MMU-Linux, we don't bother with it on
> nommu). Most of the problems we ran in to with 4k stacks tended to be
> stuff that we wanted to fix for 8k anyways. I suspect that this case is
> true for the other embedded platforms also.

Most stack issues are not platform or architecture specific.

The maintainance effort therefore mostly depends on whether a non-zero
number of architectures uses 4kB stacks.

And if something is considered to be important for small embedded
systems, but not supported on ARM, MIPS or PowerPC, then that's
a bit strange.



"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-28 18:19    [W:0.142 / U:5.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site