On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Lee Revell wrote:No. If writing an os from scratch, then using 4k stacks would
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 14:46 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:You imply that your customer's problem was due to a kernel bug triggered
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 14:07 -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:??????
When you are on the phone with an irrate customer at 2:00 am in theBugzilla link please. Otherwise STFU.
morning, and just turning off your broken 4K stack fix
and getting the customer running matters.
Jeff
by CONFIG_4KSTACKS. I am asking you to provide a link to the bug report
or get lost.
Lee
Throughout the past two years of 4k stack-wars, I never heard why
such a small stack was needed (not wanted, needed). It seems that
everybody "knows" that smaller is better and most everybody thinks
that one page in ix86 land is "optimum". However I don't think
anybody ever even tried to analyze what was better from a technical
perspective. Instead it's been analyzed as religious dogma, i.e.,
keep the stack small, it will prevent idiots from doing bad things.
I'm fairly sure that if you started from scratch and decided to
write a new operating system, your choice of a stack-size would
probably be something like 64k. I have no clue why somebody
decided to use a 4k stack and force their choice upon others.
And, yes, I am well aware that each system-call requires a
seperate stack upon entry and it even needs to keep that stack
while sleeping.