From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Nov 8 1:22:33 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (placeholder-dcat-1076843399.broadbandoffice.net [64.47.83.135]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B5637B479 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 01:22:31 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) id eA89MMQ98018; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 01:22:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 01:22:22 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200011080922.eA89MMQ98018@earth.backplane.com> To: Jacques Fourie Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kernel stack size? References: <20001108082135.21027.qmail@web3504.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG : : :Would it be possible to pre-allocate a block of memory :and then "switch" stacks in my interrupt routine? This :may be far off, but my only other option is going :through ~10000 lines of code and examining all places :where local variables are declared. If I could somehow :do this in a different way, it would really help a :lot. : :regards, :jacques I think you are stuck. I would transplant most of the code into a user level process and have the interrupt and device driver just deal with getting the data to and from the user process. You can theoretically increase UPAGES in /usr/src/sys/i386/include/param.h but I dunno if that would work, and it would increase the size of every kernel stack for every process in the system. I get the feeling that your code eats more then just a few kilobytes of stack. It doesn't sound like something that belongs in the kernel. The only other choice would be to rewrite the code into a form suitable for the kernel's smaller stack. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message