Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:12:15 +0900 From: "George V. Neville-Neil" <gnn@neville-neil.com> To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd@areilly.bpc-users.org>, FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org>, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> Subject: Re: stack hogs in kernel Message-ID: <m2wsmzv340.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <3226.1208246794@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20080414213656.Q959@desktop> <3226.1208246794@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:06:34 +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <20080414213656.Q959@desktop>, Jeff Roberson writes: > > >> I've long wondered about the seemingly fanatical stack size concern in > >> kernel space. In other domains (where I have more experience) you can > >> get good performance benefits from the essentially free memory management > >> and good cache re-use that comes from putting as much into the > >> stack/call-frame as possible. > > > >There is a small fixed kernel stack per-thread. > > And in case anybody is about to forget: FreeBSD is still used on > systems with a lot less than 1GB ram :-) And we'd like it to be used on systems with even less :-) Later, George
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m2wsmzv340.wl%gnn>