Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 12:09:40 +0000 From: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=C3=A9?= <roger.pau@citrix.com>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Too low PTHREAD_STACK_MIN value? Message-ID: <E2C880CC-10A1-40A0-8489-68C6A8DF27F9@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2BK6R90pop9v_%2BtW54cv3BoHCQkxBu4-E2fnZ1BptsfHw@mail.gmail.com> References: <531F42CD.8020307@citrix.com> <913B1E7A-5192-430F-ABAF-576DFCFF98E6@FreeBSD.org> <CAPyFy2BK6R90pop9v_%2BtW54cv3BoHCQkxBu4-E2fnZ1BptsfHw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21 Jan 2016, at 16:02, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > I found that lang/polyml uses PTHREAD_STACK_MIN for a trivial signal > handler thread it creates[1]. They found it was too small and > implemented a 4K minimum bound to fix polyml on FreeBSD[2]. Even if > this isn't really the intended use of PTHREAD_STACK_MIN it suggests > the 2K x86 minimum may indeed be too low. >=20 > I ran into this while trying LLVM's libunwind, which requires more > stack space. 2K is certainly too low with LLVM libunwind. Is it > reasonable to just increase it to say 8K? I don=E2=80=99t really like this solution. PTHREAD_STACK_MIN is the = size for a stack that does not do anything. You should never use it = without adding the amount that you are going to need (which might be = nothing if you are running code from a language that does not use a = conventional C-style stack, but still wants to use OS threads). Making = it larger because a specific kind of thing that some consumers want to = do with it needs more space is definitely against the spirit of the = value and potentially harmful as it means that people using it correctly = will be using a lot more memory per thread. David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E2C880CC-10A1-40A0-8489-68C6A8DF27F9>