Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/i386/i386

2012-01-19 Thread Matthias Drochner 

dyo...@pobox.com said:
  increased stack use lead to stack overflow on amd64
  with a deep PCI hierarchy
 Tell me more about this.

It was sys/dev/pci/pci.c rev.1.141 which triggered it.
Stack use must already have been tight, and the additional
device number array was the last straw.
The question is now whether it is sufficient in the long run
to trim down stack usage (eg devinfo in ppbattach()),
or whether the kernel stack needs to be increased.

 Please revert the reversion.  I will add a big, fat comment.

It makes more sense if you commit the code together with
the comment, and cvs annotate's output would be more
sensible too.

best regards
Matthias





Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH
52425 Juelich
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),
Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt,
Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt



Kennen Sie schon unsere app? http://www.fz-juelich.de/app

re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/i386/i386

2012-01-19 Thread matthew green 

 dyo...@pobox.com said:
   increased stack use lead to stack overflow on amd64
   with a deep PCI hierarchy
  Tell me more about this.
 
 It was sys/dev/pci/pci.c rev.1.141 which triggered it.
 Stack use must already have been tight, and the additional
 device number array was the last straw.
 The question is now whether it is sufficient in the long run
 to trim down stack usage (eg devinfo in ppbattach()),
 or whether the kernel stack needs to be increased.

we should try to decrease kernel stack usage *espcially for* rarely
occuring things like autoconfig.  alloc/free here for whatever is
using a lot of memory would be much better than increasing the
minimum each LWP requires.


.mrg.