| |||||||||||||
Quote of the weekQuote of the weekPosted Jun 21, 2004 18:40 UTC (Mon) by chad.netzer (✭ supporter ✭, #4257)In reply to: Quote of the week by khim Parent article: Quote of the week 4K stacks are not default for the generic kernel, and if your distribution turns them on by default, it should have a method for dealing with possible Reiser problems (if they indeed exist, which has actually been up for some debate; I'll take your word for it). As he says, Reiser had been developed for and debugged for 8K stacks. Changing to 4K stacks is a drastic change in programing assumptions, and changing Reiser to accomodate them results in new, "unstable" code that hasn't been tested. He simply advocates not relying on new, untested code, during a "stable" (ie. 2.6 series) kernel regime. BTW - Incendiary things are said on lkml all the time; this one is tame by comparison.
(Log in to post comments)
reiser3 corruption Posted Jun 25, 2004 12:40 UTC (Fri) by joern (subscriber, #22392) [Link] According to Arjan, who I fully trust, you effectively had 4k stacks with 2.4 already. The 8k are shared with a struct task_struct (slightly over 1k) and all interrupts. If 4k are not enough, 2.4 will occasionally break as well. Better to always break, as it doesn't create false hope.That said, I am quite surprised to see reports of Reiser3 and 4k stacks causing any form of corruption. My checker didn't find any call trace over 3.2k and only one recursion that looks quite harmless. Can anyone back that up or even reproduce the corruption?
|
|||||||||||||