From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265133AbUGCOos (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Jul 2004 10:44:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265134AbUGCOos (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Jul 2004 10:44:48 -0400 Received: from lucidpixels.com ([66.45.37.187]:1000 "HELO lucidpixels.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265133AbUGCOoq (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Jul 2004 10:44:46 -0400 Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 10:44:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Justin Piszcz X-X-Sender: jpiszcz@p500 To: Mark Hahn cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 4K vs 8K stacks- Which to use? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > does it matter? Well the option is available :) > why do you think it would be processor-specific? Well I know IA32 is limited to a 4096 byte page size in the Linux Kernel; hence filesystems can only use 4KB blocks on IA32, therefore I was wondering if anything might change in 64bit land? On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Mark Hahn wrote: >> I use an array of machines with all sorts of CPU's (but no 64bit CPU's >> yet): >> >> Which should I use for each CPU? > > does it matter? 4k stacks are primarily for benchmark machines > under high load, where smaller stacks mean more threads available, > and less chance of failing to allocate two contiguous pages. > >> Which is better and why? > > can't possibly matter for any normal use. > >> Pentium 1 CPU's >> Cyrix P150 (120MHZ) >> Pentium 2 CPU's >> Pentium 3 CPU's >> Pentium 4 W/HT >> Pentium 4 W/OUT HT > > why do you think it would be processor-specific? >