Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 21:06:55 +0100 From: Steven Hartland <steven@multiplay.co.uk> To: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, src-committers@freebsd.org, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r286223 - head/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs Message-ID: <55C11B5F.2080007@multiplay.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20150804161448.GC24698@zxy.spb.ru> References: <20150803094730.GA24698@zxy.spb.ru> <55BF431E.3020601@freebsd.org> <2757800.HIDNx1G49O@overcee.wemm.org> <20150803111942.GB2072@kib.kiev.ua> <55BF557B.60009@multiplay.co.uk> <20150803120359.GC2072@kib.kiev.ua> <55BFC296.5050402@freebsd.org> <20150803194412.GC8792@zxy.spb.ru> <CFB4CACC-E730-47BD-905D-03F8DCF863F9@bsdimp.com> <55C07826.9070002@multiplay.co.uk> <20150804161448.GC24698@zxy.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 04/08/2015 17:14, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:30:30AM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: > >> >> On 03/08/2015 21:48, Warner Losh wrote: >>>> On Aug 3, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 03:35:50AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/3/15 8:03 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 12:50:19PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: >>>>>>> For this change I don't want to get into fixing the thread0 stack size, >>>>>>> which can be done later, just >>>>>>> to provide a reasonable warning to the user that smaller values could >>>>>>> cause a panic. >>>>>> Hmm, is it limited to the thread0 only ? I.e., would only increasing >>>>>> the initial thread stack size be enough to boot the kernel ? The zfs >>>>>> threads do request larger stack size, I know this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can somebody test the following patch in the i386 configuration which >>>>>> does not boot ? >>>>> I think this is a reasonable thing to do. Thread0 (and proc0) are special. >>>>> I don't see why giving it a specially sized stack would be a problem. >>>> This is always do for ARM. >>>> May be need increase stack size for Thread0 on ARM too? >>> Seems reasonable. There should be a MI way of doing this, but all the code and defines are buried in MD files, so each architecture needs some love to make this a reality. >>> >>> Warner >> In the mean time are people happier with >> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D3279 or should I just leave it using the >> #define until someone has time to work on a full solution? > Checking by #ifdef you check only parametr at time of building zfs.ko, > checking variable you check actual value. > May be check thread stack best if only for current tread. Not sure I follow you as its not a #ifdef check its straight if in the new version i.e. if (kstack_pages < ZFS_MIN_KSTACK_PAGES) { Just in case you didn't notice kib committed a fix for i386 thread0 in r286288 so this may not be needed at all any more which is good news :) Regards Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55C11B5F.2080007>