Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > On 14/01/2015 11:20, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>> > The same problem applies to coroutine stacks, and those cannot be >>> > throttled down as easily. But I guess if you limit the number of >>> > threads, the guest gets slowed down and doesn't create as many coroutines. >> Shouldn't we rather try and decrease the stack sizes a bit? 1 MB per >> coroutine is really a lot, and as I understand it, threads take even >> more by default. > > Yup, 2 MB. Last time I proposed this, I think Markus was strongly in > the "better safe than sorry" camp. :)
Yup. Running out of stack is a nasty failure mode. > But thread pool workers definitely don't need a big stack. When analysis leads to an upper bound for stack size, by all means use it. Absent rigorous analysis backed by testing, I recommend to throw address space at the problem. 32 bit limitations can force us to throw less generously (and be less safe) there. Not a good reason to compromise safety on 64 bit machines as well, though. [...]
