On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:06:55PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: > > > On 04/08/2015 17:14, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:30:30AM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote: > > > >> > >> On 03/08/2015 21:48, Warner Losh wrote: > >>>> On Aug 3, 2015, at 1:44 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov <s...@zxy.spb.ru> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 03:35:50AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 8/3/15 8:03 PM, Konstantin Belousov 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 ? > >>>>> I think this is a reasonable thing to do. Thread0 (and proc0) are > >>>>> special. > >>>>> I don't see why giving it a specially sized stack would be a problem. > >>>> This is always do for ARM. > >>>> May be need increase stack size for Thread0 on ARM too? > >>> Seems reasonable. There should be a MI way of doing this, but all the > >>> code and defines are buried in MD files, so each architecture needs some > >>> love to make this a reality. > >>> > >>> Warner > >> In the mean time are people happier with > >> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D3279 or should I just leave it using the > >> #define until someone has time to work on a full solution? > > Checking by #ifdef you check only parametr at time of building zfs.ko, > > checking variable you check actual value. > > May be check thread stack best if only for current tread. > Not sure I follow you as its not a #ifdef check its straight if in the > new version i.e. > if (kstack_pages < ZFS_MIN_KSTACK_PAGES) {
This check checked how actual kernel compile vs how compile zfs.ko. Remeber that kenel may be compiled independed from modules? > Just in case you didn't notice kib committed a fix for i386 thread0 in > r286288 so this may not be needed at all any more which is good news :) If I understund kib fix (and you about ZFS stack requirements) you need check curthread->td_kstack_pages (for case old, unfixed kerenel, depended from KSTACK_PAGES in Thread0). I.e. for all cases: - unfixed kernel with KSTACK_PAGES < 4 - unfixed kernel with KSTACK_PAGES >= 4 - fixed kernel with KSTACK_PAGES < 4 - fixed kernel with KSTACK_PAGES >= 4 - compiling zfs.ko separately from kernel with different KSTACK_PAGES - using zfs.ko with old kernel checking curthread->td_kstack_pages is right way (or, may be curthread->td_kstack_pages*PAGE_SIZE -- I am not cleanly understund what need to check -- size in bytes or size in pages). Checking KSTACK_PAGES by ifdef can produce vrong result. _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
