On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 09:07:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> but, but. We already have CONFIG_DEBUG_STACK_USAGE?
Whoops, that's not exactly what I want, but it's close enough to let
me throw out some code.
Drop that and I'll send a fixed version.
Jeff
--
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 09:07:38PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
but, but. We already have CONFIG_DEBUG_STACK_USAGE?
Whoops, that's not exactly what I want, but it's close enough to let
me throw out some code.
Drop that and I'll send a fixed version.
Jeff
--
On Wed, 9 May 2007 16:27:22 -0400 Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In preparation for reducing stack size, add a machanism to see how
> much of a kernel stack is used. This fills a new stack with 0x6b on
> allocation and sees where the lowest non-0x6b byte is on process
> exit. It keeps
In preparation for reducing stack size, add a machanism to see how
much of a kernel stack is used. This fills a new stack with 0x6b on
allocation and sees where the lowest non-0x6b byte is on process
exit. It keeps track of the lowest value and logs values as they get
lower.
The lowest values
In preparation for reducing stack size, add a machanism to see how
much of a kernel stack is used. This fills a new stack with 0x6b on
allocation and sees where the lowest non-0x6b byte is on process
exit. It keeps track of the lowest value and logs values as they get
lower.
The lowest values
On Wed, 9 May 2007 16:27:22 -0400 Jeff Dike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In preparation for reducing stack size, add a machanism to see how
much of a kernel stack is used. This fills a new stack with 0x6b on
allocation and sees where the lowest non-0x6b byte is on process
exit. It keeps track
6 matches
Mail list logo
