Re: top stack (l)users for 2.5.69

[Jonathan Lundell]

At 10:16am -0400 5/7/03, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>Nope. Just don't steal thousands of CPU cycles to make something
>"pretty". Obviously something called recursively with a 2k buffer
>on the stack is going to break. However one has to actually
>look at the code and determine the best (if any) way to reduce
>stack usage. For instance, some persons may just "like" 0x400 for
>the size of a temporary buffer when, in fact, 29 bytes are actually
>used.
>
>FYI, one can make a module that will show the maximum amount
>of stack ever used IFF the stack gets zeroed before use upon
>kernel startup. Would this be useful or has it already been
>done?

There's at least one patch floating around to do that; we've used it 
to help track down some stack overflow problems.

Does 2.5 use a separate interrupt stack? (Excuse my ignorance; I 
haven't been paying attention.) Total stack-page usage in the 2.4 
model, at any rate, is the sum of the task struct, the usage of any 
task-level thread (system calls, pretty much), any softirq (including 
the network protocol & routing handlers, and any netfilter modules), 
and some number of possibly-nested hard interrupts.

That adds up.

One thing that would help (aside from separate interrupt stacks) 
would be a guard page below the stack. That wouldn't require any 
physical memory to be reserved, and would provide positive indication 
of stack overflow without significant runtime overhead.
-- 
/Jonathan Lundell.