On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, David Miller wrote:
> > there is still code that does DMA from and to the stack
> > how would this work with virtual allocated stack?
>
> That's a bug and must be fixed.
>
> There honestly shouldn't be that many examples around.
>
> FWIW, there are platforms using a virt
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thursday 04 October 2007 05:59, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > Make the stack size configurable now that we can fallback to vmalloc if
> > necessary. SGI NUMA configurations may need more stack because cpumasks
> > and nodemasks are at times kept on the sta
On Thursday 04 October 2007 05:59, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Make the stack size configurable now that we can fallback to vmalloc if
> necessary. SGI NUMA configurations may need more stack because cpumasks
> and nodemasks are at times kept on the stack. With the coming 16k cpu
> support
Hmm,
From: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 21:36:31 -0700
> there is still code that does DMA from and to the stack
> how would this work with virtual allocated stack?
That's a bug and must be fixed.
There honestly shouldn't be that many examples around.
FWIW, there ar
On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:59:49 -0700
Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Make the stack size configurable now that we can fallback to vmalloc
> if necessary. SGI NUMA configurations may need more stack because
> cpumasks and nodemasks are at times kept on the stack. With the
> coming 16k
Make the stack size configurable now that we can fallback to vmalloc if
necessary. SGI NUMA configurations may need more stack because cpumasks
and nodemasks are at times kept on the stack. With the coming 16k cpu
support this is going to be 2k just for the mask. This patch allows to
run with 16k o
6 matches
Mail list logo
