On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:37:00PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 14:16 +0100, Ingo Oeser wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > David Chinner schrieb: > > > If the softirqs were run on a different stack, then a lot of these > > softirqs DO run on their own stack! So they run on a separate stack for 4k stacks on x86? They don't run on a separate stack for 8k stacks on x86 - Jesper's traces show that - so this may indicate an issue with the methodology used to generate the stack overflow traces inteh first place. i.e. if 4k stacks use a separate stack, then most of the reported overflows are spurious and would not normally occur on 4k stack systems.. Can you confirm this, Arjan? Also, that means that while XFS is apparently only using <1500 bytes of stack through this path according to the static stack checker tool, there's more than 2k of extra stack usage that the tool is not telling me about. i.e. XFS and whatever is above/below it should have a full 4k to work with. I'd really like to know where that extra stack space is being used.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
