Re: Does process need to have a kernel-side stack all the time?

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 - 10:31 am

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:59:01 +0200
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:


it's a question of very simple math though; both the space and the
amount of other pinnings mean you run into a wall.

2.6 is no doubt better, for sure it's better in freeing up memory etc.
It just can't be good enough.

(just to be clear, customers do run 30k threads workloads on 16Mb machines that
also have a sizable inode and dentry cache. you just cannot defragment that to the point
that you can use 8k stacks).




-- 
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Does process need to have a kernel-side stack all the ti..., Arjan van de Ven, (Wed Apr 16, 10:34 am)
Re: Does process need to have a kernel-side stack all the ti..., Arjan van de Ven, (Wed Apr 16, 10:31 am)