Cc: Ray Lee <ray-lk@...>, Matt Mackall <mpm@...>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...>, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>, William Lee Irwin III <wli@...>, David Chinner <dgc@...>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...>
No, I most certainly do not. I claim proving that 4K and seperate (per cpu)
interrupt stacks are safe are exactly the same as proving unshared 8K stacks
are safe. That is, you don't, no such proof exists other than in the eating
of the pudding. Ray (and you) in considering !CONFIG_4KSTACKS to be "safer"
than CONFIG_4KSTACKS suggest that _inevitably_ CONFIG_4KSTACKS would leave
you with less available stack and I pointed out this isn't be the case.
And in fact, I shouldn't have said "exactly" the same. Unshared interrupt
stacks make for more determistisc behaviour, so you'd have a harder time
proven anything to some set limit of uncertainty with the shared 8K stacks
than with the unshared 4K stacks.
I really have not made any claim of the kind. The argument is that with
CONFIG_4KSTACKS, availeble stack space isn't inevitably less at any point in
time.
Rene.
-
