On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:08:53AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > On 24/11/06, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >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? > > Yes, with 4K stacks there's sepperate IRQ stack. Ok, thanks. > >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.. > > > > Well, some of the traces show that we were down to ~3K stack free with > 8K stacks, so ~5K used. Even with 4K stacks and sepperate stack for > IRQs we will still be uncomfortably close to the edge in those cases. Sure - i didn't say there wasn't a problem - more just indicating that most of the traces would not have happened on a 4k stack box so it's harder to tell which of the traces you posted would actually lead to an overflow. 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
