On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 03:42:18PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 05/28/2014 03:11 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 07:23:23AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> We tried for 4K on x86-64, too, for b quite a while as I recall. > >> The kernel stack is a one of the main costs for a thread. I would > >> like to decouple struct thread_info from the kernel stack (PJ > >> Waskewicz was working on that before he left Intel) but that > >> doesn't buy us all that much. > >> > >> 8K additional per thread is a huge hit. XFS has indeed always > >> been a canary, or troublespot, I suspect because it originally > >> came from another kernel where this was not an optimization > >> target. > > > > <sigh> > > > > Always blame XFS for stack usage problems. > > > > Even when the reported problem is from IO to an ext4 filesystem. > > > > You were the one calling it a canary. That doesn't mean it's to blame. Don't shoot the messenger... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>