On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:28:42 -0500, Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:57 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
> >
> > > This has been a doubt for a couple of days, and I am wondering if this
> > > one could also be cleared.
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 02:14 +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> CONFIG_IRQSTACKS seems only on ppc64. Is it good to add for other archs too?
Some architectures (x86) control per-IRQ stacks via CONFIG_4KSTACKS, so
enabling that directive turns on 4K stacks and gives interrupts their
own stack.
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:28:42 -0500, Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:57 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
>
> > This has been a doubt for a couple of days, and I am wondering if this
> > one could also be cleared. When you say kernel stack, can't be resized
> >
> >
>
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 23:25 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
> Thanks again, but if the whole of the kernel is restricted to couple of pages.
NO. I did not say this. EACH PROCESS'S KERNEL STACK IS A PAGE OR TWO.
That is all I said.
The kernel can consume hundreds of megabytes of data if it
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:13:20 -0500, Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:34 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
I am wondering if someone could provide information as to how
thread_struct is kept in memory. Robert Love mentions
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:28:42 -0500, Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:57 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
>
> > This has been a doubt for a couple of days, and I am wondering if this
> > one could also be cleared. When you say kernel stack, can't be resized
> >
> >
>
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:57 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
> This has been a doubt for a couple of days, and I am wondering if this
> one could also be cleared. When you say kernel stack, can't be resized
>
>
> a) Does it mean that the _whole_ of the kernel is restricted to
> that 8K or
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:13:20 -0500, Robert Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:34 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
>
> > I am wondering if someone could provide information as to how
> > thread_struct is kept in memory. Robert Love mentions that it is kept
> > at the
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:34 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
> I am wondering if someone could provide information as to how
> thread_struct is kept in memory. Robert Love mentions that it is kept
> at the "lowest" kernel address in case of x86 based platform. Could
> anyone answer these
Hello
I am wondering if someone could provide information as to how
thread_struct is kept in memory. Robert Love mentions that it is kept
at the "lowest" kernel address in case of x86 based platform. Could
anyone answer these questions.
a) When a stack is resized, is the
Hello
I am wondering if someone could provide information as to how
thread_struct is kept in memory. Robert Love mentions that it is kept
at the lowest kernel address in case of x86 based platform. Could
anyone answer these questions.
a) When a stack is resized, is the thread_struct
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:34 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
I am wondering if someone could provide information as to how
thread_struct is kept in memory. Robert Love mentions that it is kept
at the lowest kernel address in case of x86 based platform. Could
anyone answer these questions.
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:13:20 -0500, Robert Love [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:34 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
I am wondering if someone could provide information as to how
thread_struct is kept in memory. Robert Love mentions that it is kept
at the lowest
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:57 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
This has been a doubt for a couple of days, and I am wondering if this
one could also be cleared. When you say kernel stack, can't be resized
a) Does it mean that the _whole_ of the kernel is restricted to
that 8K or 16K of
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:28:42 -0500, Robert Love [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:57 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
This has been a doubt for a couple of days, and I am wondering if this
one could also be cleared. When you say kernel stack, can't be resized
a)
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:13:20 -0500, Robert Love [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:34 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
I am wondering if someone could provide information as to how
thread_struct is kept in memory. Robert Love mentions
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 23:25 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
Thanks again, but if the whole of the kernel is restricted to couple of pages.
NO. I did not say this. EACH PROCESS'S KERNEL STACK IS A PAGE OR TWO.
That is all I said.
The kernel can consume hundreds of megabytes of data if it wants.
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:28:42 -0500, Robert Love [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:57 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
This has been a doubt for a couple of days, and I am wondering if this
one could also be cleared. When you say kernel stack, can't be resized
a)
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 02:14 +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
CONFIG_IRQSTACKS seems only on ppc64. Is it good to add for other archs too?
Some architectures (x86) control per-IRQ stacks via CONFIG_4KSTACKS, so
enabling that directive turns on 4K stacks and gives interrupts their
own stack.
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:28:42 -0500, Robert Love [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 22:57 +0530, Imanpreet Arora wrote:
This has been a doubt for a couple of days, and I am wondering if this
one could also be cleared. When you say
20 matches
Mail list logo
