Re: [Bug #11342] Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c - bisected

[Greg Ungerer]

Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 02:58:30PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 05:28:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > When did we get callpaths like like nfs+xfs+md+scsi reliably 
> > > > working with 4kB stacks on x86-32?
> > > XFS may never have been usable, but the rest, sure.
> > >
> > > And you seem to be making this whole argument an excuse to SUCK, adn an 
> > > excuse to let gcc crap even more on our stack space.
> > >
> > > Why?
> > >
> > > Why aren't you saying that we should be able to do better? Instead, you 
> > > seem to asking us to do even worse than we do now?
> > My main point is:
> > - getting 4kB stacks working reliably is a hard task
> > - having an eye on gcc increasing the stack usage, and fixing it if
> >   required, is relatively easy
> >
> > If we should be able to do better at getting (and keeping) 4kB stacks 
> > working, then coping with possible inlining problems caused by gcc
> > should not be a big problem for us.
> Out of the architectures you've mentioned for 4k stacks, they also tend
> to do IRQ stacks, which is something you seem to have overlooked.
>
> In addition to that, debugging the runaway stack users on 4k tends to be
> easier anyways since you end up blowing the stack a lot sooner. On sh
> we've had pretty good luck with it, though most of our users are using
> fairly deterministic workloads and continually profiling the footprint.
> Anything that runs away or uses an insane amount of stack space needs to
> be fixed well before that anyways, so catching it sooner is always
> preferable. I imagine the same case is true for m68knommu (even sans IRQ
> stacks).

Yep, definitely true for m68knommu in my experience. I haven't had
any problems with 4k stacks recently. But yes the workloads do tend
to be constrained - and almost never use any of the more exotic
filesystems or drivers.



> Things might be more sensitive on x86, but it's certainly not something
> that's a huge problem for the various embedded platforms to wire up,
> whether they want to go the IRQ stack route or not.
>
> In any event, lack of support for something on embedded architectures in
> the kernel is more often due to apathy/utter indifference on the part of
> the architecture maintainer rather than being indicative of any intrinsic
> difficulty in supporting the thing in question. Most new "features" on the
> lesser maintained architectures tend to end up there either out of peer
> pressure or copying-and-pasting accidents rather than any sort of design.
> ;-)

Indeed :-)

Regards
Greg


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ungerer  --  Chief Software Dude       EMAIL:     gerg@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Secure Computing Corporation                PHONE:       +61 7 3435 2888
825 Stanley St,                             FAX:         +61 7 3891 3630
Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia         WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/