Messages in this thread | | | From | Bodo Eggert <> | Subject | Re: x86: 4kstacks default | Date | Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:23:45 +0200 |
| |
Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net> wrote: > On Sunday 20 April 2008 08:27:14 Andi Kleen wrote: >> Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> writes: >> > 6k is known to work, and there aren't many problems known with 4k. >> > >> > And from a QA point of view the only way of getting 4k thoroughly tested >> >> But you have to first ask why do you want 4k tested? Does it serve >> any useful purpose in itself? I don't think so. Or you're saying >> it's important to support 50k kernel threads on 32bit kernels?
> Andi, you're the only one I've seen seriously pounding the "50k threads" > thing - I don't think anyone is really fooled by the straw-man, so I'd > suggest you drop it. > > The real issue is that you think (and are correct in thinking) that people are > idiots. Yes, there will be breakages if the default is changed to 4k stacks - > but if people are running new kernels on boxes that'll hit stack use problems > (that *AREN'T* related to ndiswrapper) and haven't made sure that they've > configured the kernel properly, then they deserve the outcome. It isn't the > job of the Linux Kernel to protect the incompetent - nor is it the job of > linux kernel developers to do such.
It's the job of the kernel developers to mark experimental and broken options, and to put a warning:
"This will break stacking of drivers, especially if disk manager, xfs, RAID and nfs are used. Yes, linux is broken by default, but only if you intend to set up a reliable system, so this will be OK!"
into the help text, instead of expecting each admin to read lkml.
| |