Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 04:48:46 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: Juli Mallett <juli@northcloak.com>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-mips@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ELF - panic on installworld Message-ID: <5A9F0CBE.9070909@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <CAGSiXYw3m3sPJJb0_Vyr=XWEd4vdu9sypPieqXbqSJJkJ2K6BA@mail.gmail.com> References: <20180305211635.GA21623@lyxys.ka.sub.org> <5A9DEE9E.6050906@grosbein.net> <5A9DF0D6.7090306@grosbein.net> <1949943.3JoNfSzP6x@ralph.baldwin.cx> <CAGSiXYw3m3sPJJb0_Vyr=XWEd4vdu9sypPieqXbqSJJkJ2K6BA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
07.03.2018 3:14, Juli Mallett wrote: > That said, we could easily use a more flexible wired TLB entry scheme, > including smartly using pagemask in the cases where the number of pages is > suitable. If we wanted to allow wiring of mappings into the TLB flexibly > at runtime we could do that, or we could just at compile-time have > different code to handle different KSTACK_PAGES values. People have strong > feelings about some of those options, but if there's a workload-oriented > pressure to move in a different direction, it should be very easy to do. I cannot understand what "feelings" may exist about kernel stack shortage leading to panics.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5A9F0CBE.9070909>