Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful

2007-08-31 Thread Denys Vlasenko
On Friday 31 August 2007 15:35, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Fri, 31 August 2007 12:11:25 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > > > KSYM_NAME_LEN = 128 sounds stupid. The name which is wider than 80 chars?? > > Kernel shouldn't have names that long. > > Say, 50 chars ought to be enough. > > Might be an enfo

Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful

2007-08-31 Thread Jörn Engel
On Fri, 31 August 2007 12:11:25 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > KSYM_NAME_LEN = 128 sounds stupid. The name which is wider than 80 chars?? > Kernel shouldn't have names that long. > Say, 50 chars ought to be enough. Might be an enforcement problem, unless someone also writes a check_name_len.pl

Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful

2007-08-31 Thread Denys Vlasenko
On Wednesday 29 August 2007 23:34, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Noticed today that the combination of 4KSTACKS and DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW > config options is a bit deadly. > > DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW warns in do_IRQ if we're within THREAD_SIZE/8 of the > end of useable stack space, or 512 bytes on a 4k stack. ..

Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful

2007-08-29 Thread Kyle Moffett
On Aug 29, 2007, at 19:01:57, Eric Sandeen wrote: Jesper Juhl wrote: A first step could be to allocate those two char arrays with kmalloc() instead of on the stack, but then I guess that dump_stack () gets called from places where we may not really want to be calling kmalloc(). I guess we co

Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful

2007-08-29 Thread Eric Sandeen
Jesper Juhl wrote: >> Any suggestions for ways around this? The warning is somewhat helpful, >> and I guess the obvious option is to lighten up the dump_stack path, but >> it's still effectively reducing precious available stack space by some >> amount. >> > A first step could be to allocate thos

Re: 4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful

2007-08-29 Thread Jesper Juhl
On 30/08/2007, Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Noticed today that the combination of 4KSTACKS and DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW > config options is a bit deadly. > > DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW warns in do_IRQ if we're within THREAD_SIZE/8 of the > end of useable stack space, or 512 bytes on a 4k stack. >

4KSTACKS + DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW harmful

2007-08-29 Thread Eric Sandeen
Noticed today that the combination of 4KSTACKS and DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW config options is a bit deadly. DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW warns in do_IRQ if we're within THREAD_SIZE/8 of the end of useable stack space, or 512 bytes on a 4k stack. If we are, then it goes down the dump_stack path, which uses most