From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jan 25 00:24:24 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1F98116A4CE; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:24:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A7F4D43D2F; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:24:23 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
	j0P0OCgm029982;	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:24:12 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:24:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <1106611680.28710.48.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0501241914500.19951-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net)
cc: threads@freebsd.org
cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Dynamic thread stack size
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:24:24 -0000

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 15:15 -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >Okay, so lobby that it gets reduced in login.conf.  Why should threads
> > >be given less stack than processes, especially the initial thread?
> > >
> >
> > because there may be 50 of them? (or maybe even 500?)
> >
> > Threaded programs are supposed to be aware that stack is a limited resource.
>
> I thought about that, but I also thought that KSEs were treated
> similarly to processes so it wouldn't matter if each one had a full
> allocation of stacksize?

KSE != thread

A (userland) KSE stack is very small and is just enough to
schedule threads.  A thread stack is allocated (by default)
off the one (and only one) process' stack.  Allocating lots
of threads with large stacks depletes the process stack.

-- 
DE