On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 06:31:20PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> That is exactly what I said above, a separate fault task with its own
> stack for every cpu. But there is no point in doing this to detect a
> hardware stack overflow when the overflow has already corrupted the
> struct task which is at the bottom of the stack segment.
You can at least get a backtrace, which is useful enough.
>
> To get any benefit from hardware detection of kernel stack overflow you
> must also dedicate the stack segment to hold only stack data. That
> means moving struct task to yet another page, adding an extra page per
> task. It is just too expensive, we write better code than that.
Ah this was a misunderstanding. I was just talking about plain recovery
from stack faults; not from hardware stack overflow detection. Even without
wather tight overflow detection they happen often enough and usually not
too long after a stack page overflow.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
