Re: top stack (l)users for 2.5.69

[Jörn Engel]

On Wed, 7 May 2003 12:01:14 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> x86 doesn't really have big physical shortages right now.  But, the
> _virtual_ shortages are significant.  The guard page just increases the
> virtual cost by 50%.

Different people have different constraints. :)

For me, physical memory is low while virtual memory is abundant.  But
even in your case, the guard page might be an acceptable evil during a
(hopefully short) transition time.

> The stack overflow checking in -mjb uses gcc's mcount mechanism to
> detect overflows.  It should get called on every single function call.

Nice trick.  Do you have better documentation on that machanism than
man gcc?  The paragraph to -p is quite short and I cannot make the
connection to the rest of the patch immediately.

Jörn

-- 
Optimizations always bust things, because all optimizations are, in
the long haul, a form of cheating, and cheaters eventually get caught.
-- Larry Wall