From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [13/18] x86_64: Allow fallback for the stack Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:56:30 +1000 References: <20071004035935.042951211@sgi.com> <200710091846.22796.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200710091956.30487.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Rik van Riel , Andi Kleen , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, travis@sgi.com List-ID: On Wednesday 10 October 2007 11:26, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > We already use 32k stacks on IA64. So the memory argument fail there. > > > > I'm talking about generic code. > > The stack size is set in arch code not in generic code. Generic code must assume a 4K stack on 32-bit, in general (modulo huge cpumasks and such, I guess). > > > > The solution has until now always been to fix the problems so they > > > > don't use so much stack. Maybe a bigger stack is OK for you for 1024+ > > > > CPU systems, but I don't think you'd be able to make that assumption > > > > for most normal systems. > > > > > > Yes that is why I made the stack size configurable. > > > > Fine. I just don't see why you need this fallback. > > So you would be ok with submitting the configurable stacksize patches > separately without the fallback? Sure. It's already configurable on other architectures. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org