Fabian Keil <freebsd-lis...@fabiankeil.de> wrote: > Konstantin Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 12:50:19PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: > > > For this change I don't want to get into fixing the thread0 stack size, > > > which can be done later, just > > > to provide a reasonable warning to the user that smaller values could > > > cause a panic. > > > > Hmm, is it limited to the thread0 only ? I.e., would only increasing > > the initial thread stack size be enough to boot the kernel ? The zfs > > threads do request larger stack size, I know this. > > > > Can somebody test the following patch in the i386 configuration which > > does not boot ? > > Will do.
With the patch I was able to boot from a three-disk raidz1
pool without having to set KSTACK_PAGES=4:
# sysctl -a | grep stack
kern.usrstack: 3217027072
kern.kstack_pages: 2
kern.features.stack: 1
kern.stackprot: 7
kern.elf32.nxstack: 0
vm.kstacks: 554
vm.kstack_cache_size: 128
security.bsd.stack_guard_page: 1
# zpool status rpool
pool: rpool
state: ONLINE
scan: scrub repaired 0 in 0h3m with 0 errors on Mon Aug 3 16:25:21 2015
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
rpool ONLINE 0 0 0
raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0
gpt/rpool-ada1.eli ONLINE 0 0 0
gpt/rpool-ada2.eli ONLINE 0 0 0
gpt/rpool-ada3.eli ONLINE 0 0 0
I intend to test a couple of additional configurations tomorrow,
but so far this is looking very promising.
Fabian
pgpWHyX9ABFh6.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
