On Friday 03 February 2012 03:01:35 KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > Right now MAP_STACK does not mean anything since it is ignored. The > > intention of this behaviour change is to make MAP_STACK mean that the > > map is going to be used as a stack and hence, set it up like a stack > > ought to be. I could not really think of a valid case for fixed size > > stacks; it looks like a limitation in the pthread implementation in > > glibc rather than a feature. So this patch will actually result in > > uniform behaviour across threads when it comes to stacks. > > > > This does change vm accounting since thread stacks were earlier > > accounted as anon memory. > > The fact is, now process stack and pthread stack clearly behave > different dance. libc don't expect pthread stack grow automatically. > So, your patch will break userland. Just only change display thing. does it though ? glibc doesn't keep track of the unused address space ... that's what the kernel is for. pthread_attr_setstacksize explicitly operates on the *minimum* stack size, not the *exact* size. where exactly do you think userland would break ? http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/pthread_attr_setstacksize.html -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
