On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Parag Warudkar wrote:Umm. How long? 4kB used to be the _only_ choice. And no, there weren't even irq stacks. So that 4kB was not just the whole kernel call-chain, it was also all the irq nesting above it. And yes, we've gotten much worse over time, and no, I can't really suggest going back to that in general. The code bloat has certainly been accompanied by a stack bloat too. But part of it is definitely gcc. Some versions of gcc used to be absolutely _horrid_ when it came to stack usage, especially with some flags, and especially with the crazy inlining that module-at-a-time caused. But I'd be really happy if some embedded people tried to take some of that bloat back, and aim for 4kB stacks. Because it's definitely not unrealistic. At least it _shouldn't_ be. And a lot of the cases of us having structures on the stack is actually not worth it, and tends to be about being lazy rather than anything else. Linus --
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 004/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingPatches |
| Rafael J. Wysocki | [Bug #11210] libata badness |
| Andrea Arcangeli | [PATCH 00 of 11] mmu notifier #v16 |
| Andrew Morton | Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 -- sys_fallocate |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Daniel Eischen | Re: error with thread |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
