Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 7:01 pm

Jesper Juhl wrote:


Yep, I thought about something like that... and I assume you'd need a
bit of locking around them too.


Yes, but if you happen to warn deeper anyway, just because you got
"lucky" with IRQ timing, you'll still explode.  Regardless of where the
threshold is, there's still a risk of starting the warning deeper than
that.  Whatever stack the warning takes effectively reduces the useable
stack size.

-Eric
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Eric Sandeen, (Wed Aug 29, 6:34 pm)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Mike Snitzer, (Wed May 28, 10:36 am)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Eric Sandeen, (Wed May 28, 11:13 am)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Denys Vlasenko, (Fri Aug 31, 7:11 am)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Jörn, (Fri Aug 31, 10:35 am)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Denys Vlasenko, (Fri Aug 31, 1:16 pm)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Jesper Juhl, (Wed Aug 29, 6:53 pm)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Eric Sandeen, (Wed Aug 29, 7:01 pm)
Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful, Kyle Moffett, (Wed Aug 29, 7:55 pm)