Re: [PATCH 1/3] Separate IRQ-stacks from 4K-stacks option

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 04:07:21PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > 
> > I agree about killing anything but 4K stacks though - having the single
> > page is very compelling - not only can we allocate it easier, but we can
> > also use cache-hot pages from the hot list.
> 
> I think we all agree that's a promising future, and a good discipline.
> But I'm not the only one to doubt we're there yet.
> 

> Chris's patch seems eminently sensible to me.  Why should having separate
> interrupt stack depend on whether you're configured for 4K or 8K stacks?

because it gives people a reason to do sloppy coding.

> Wasn't Andrea worried, a couple of months back, about nested interrupts
> overflowing the 4K interrupt stack?  

I don't think so; interrupts seem to behave quite ok in this regard.
What we should consider regardless is disable the nesting of irqs for
performance reasons but that's an independent matter

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature