On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 12:55:36AM +0200, Rene Herman wrote: > On 07/17/2007 12:37 AM, Ray Lee wrote: > > >On 7/16/07, Rene Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Seeing as how single-page stacks are much easier on the VM so that > >>creating those zillion threads should also be faster, at _some_ > >>percentage we get to say "and now to hell with the rest". > > > >This is the core dispute here. Stated differently, I hope you never > >design a bridge that I have to drive over. > > > >Correctness first, optimization second. Introducing random and > >difficult to trace crashes upon an unsuspecting audience of sysadmins > >and users is not a viable option. > > Quite. But unfortunately you didn't actually go into the bit on how given > seperate interrupt stacks, available stackspace might not actually _be_ > less after selecting CONFIG_4KSTCKS nor into Fedora and RHEL shipping it > already. > > >If at some point one of the pro-4k stacks crowd can prove that all > >code paths are safe > > I'll do that the minute you prove the current shared 8K stacks are safe. Do > we have a deal? > > >or introduce another viable alternative (such as Matt's idea for > >extending the stack dynamically), then removing the 8k stacks option > >makes sense. > > I'm still waiting for larger soft-pages... does anyone in this thread have > a clue on their status?
Given that most x86 users won't want anything to do with them, it's not going to help us at all here. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
