From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Mon Aug 3 19:44:17 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E979B2E94; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:44:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EE1A11DB; Mon, 3 Aug 2015 19:44:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.84 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1ZMLee-0002zv-TY; Mon, 03 Aug 2015 22:44:12 +0300 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:44:12 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Julian Elischer Cc: Konstantin Belousov , Steven Hartland , Peter Wemm , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r286223 - head/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs Message-ID: <20150803194412.GC8792@zxy.spb.ru> References: <201508030934.t739YAkT026668@repo.freebsd.org> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55BFC296.5050402@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 19:44:17 -0000 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?