From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Nov 19 16:01:56 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 93EB216A4CE; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:01:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 1F86A43D5E; Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:01:56 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
	iAJG1ojp014247;	Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:01:50 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:01:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: Alexander Nedotsukov <bland@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <419DA6CC.7040002@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0411191053500.15618-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net)
cc: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@freebsd.org>
cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Question about our default pthread stack size
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:01:56 -0000

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Alexander Nedotsukov wrote:

> Hey guys,
>
> After squashing yet another "too small thread stack size" bug in
> software developed on Linux. I decided to ask gurus for the comment. Why
> we still insist that 64K is good enough for 32bit archs? I do understand

I suggested we double the stack size for 64-bit archs (making it
128K).  I could see going to 256K for 32-bit and 512K for 64-bit.

We haven't worried too much about stack size since everything
has been running with libc_r for years without too many problems
and it's been using the same stack size.

-- 
DE