From: "Jörn Engel" <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: Linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: top stack (l)users for 2.5.69
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 19:40:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030507174027.GD19324@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0305071009050.2208-100000@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com>
On Wed, 7 May 2003 10:18:29 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2003, [iso-8859-1] Jörn Engel wrote:
>
> > It also matters if people writing applications for embedded systems
> > have a fetish for many threads. 1000 threads, each eating 8k memory
> > for pure existance (no actual work done yet), do put some memory
> > pressure on small machines. Yes, it would be possible to educate those
> > people, but changing kernel code is more fun and less work.
>
> I'm afraid I do not agree with both your sentences. Changing a *working
> kernel* code is definitely not much fun and not really less work if your
> target is the per-cpu kernel stack. You'll completely lose kernel
> preemption and this is really bad since many paths inside the kernel are
> easily preemptable. The design and the code of the kernel will become more
> complex (and slow) and even people that are correctly programming it are
> going to pay the price. No thanks, I'd say screw you thread maniacs ...
I'm not sure if I got you wrong, or vice versa. Either way, some
definitions first.
Process Stack == the traditional per-process kernel stack
Interrupt Stack == a dedicated per-CPU stack for interrupts only
CPU Stack == all kernel data on a per-CPU stack
Not for anything would I want a CPU Stack. At first thought, this is
impossible, but in reality it is just ugly beyond anything I could
bear.
An Interrupt Stack is a very good thing. I know PPC machines with 125
Interrupt lines (3 for cascading) that could theoretically all happen
at once. That alone demands for a stack size well above 8k and having
this per process is just a bad design. But that is another issue.
The real Process Stack without the interrupt overhead should not need
to be bigger than 4k. It currently is for all platforms I know about,
s390 has even 16k. This is the point of my regular allyesconfig
compilations and postings.
Do you still disagree? Then I must have misread your mail.
Jörn
--
Do not stop an army on its way home.
-- Sun Tzu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-07 17:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-05-07 13:20 Jörn Engel
2003-05-07 13:45 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-05-07 13:56 ` Jörn Engel
2003-05-07 14:16 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-05-07 17:13 ` Jonathan Lundell
2003-05-07 17:40 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-05-07 18:12 ` Roland Dreier
2003-05-07 18:28 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-05-07 18:44 ` Timothy Miller
2003-05-07 18:46 ` Roland Dreier
2003-05-07 19:30 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-05-07 19:42 ` Roland Dreier
2003-05-07 20:04 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-05-07 20:23 ` Roland Dreier
2003-05-07 20:42 ` Timothy Miller
2003-05-08 9:06 ` Jörn Engel
2003-05-08 11:33 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-05-08 12:00 ` Helge Hafting
2003-05-08 15:42 ` Timothy Miller
2003-05-09 8:57 ` Miles Bader
2003-05-09 16:50 ` Timothy Miller
2003-05-08 16:47 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-05-07 18:51 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-05-07 19:22 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-05-07 19:31 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-05-07 19:39 ` Hua Zhong
2003-05-07 21:47 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-05-08 10:29 ` David Howells
2003-05-07 17:55 ` Jörn Engel
2003-05-07 16:20 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-05-07 19:01 ` Dave Hansen
2003-05-07 20:06 ` Jörn Engel
2003-05-07 20:14 ` Dave Hansen
2003-05-08 8:41 ` Jörn Engel
2003-05-08 16:51 ` Dave Hansen
2003-05-08 22:12 ` Jörn Engel
2003-05-07 21:30 ` Jesse Pollard
2003-05-07 21:54 ` Timothy Miller
2003-05-07 22:01 ` Jesse Pollard
2003-05-07 14:33 ` Torsten Landschoff
2003-05-07 14:47 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-05-07 15:04 ` Torsten Landschoff
2003-05-07 16:01 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-05-08 15:36 ` Ingo Oeser
2003-05-08 18:04 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-05-07 15:23 ` Timothy Miller
2003-05-07 15:47 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-05-07 16:49 ` Jörn Engel
2003-05-07 17:18 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-05-07 17:40 ` Jörn Engel [this message]
2003-05-07 18:35 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-05-07 19:45 ` Jörn Engel
2003-05-07 18:23 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-05-07 17:38 ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-05-07 17:47 ` Jörn Engel
2003-05-07 14:49 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-05-07 18:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-05-07 19:17 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-05-07 20:38 ` Randy.Dunlap
2003-05-07 21:27 ` Marcus Alanen
2003-05-07 21:27 ` Randy.Dunlap
2003-05-08 15:10 ` Ingo Oeser
2003-05-08 17:12 ` Randy.Dunlap
2003-05-07 19:38 Chuck Ebbert
2003-05-08 14:08 Chuck Ebbert
2003-05-08 18:04 ` Jonathan Lundell
2003-05-08 19:05 ` Timothy Miller
2003-05-08 21:00 ` Jonathan Lundell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030507174027.GD19324@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de \
--to=joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®