Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:17:34 -0500 From: <mezz7@cox.net> To: "Daniel Eischen" <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Question about our default pthread stack size Message-ID: <20041119211734.LESF29395.lakermmtao08.cox.net@smtp.east.cox.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Had to reply in webmail without followup, because smtp.central.cox.net is down for two days that will not allow me send anything. Anyway...(copy-n-paste) On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:01:50 -0500 (EST), Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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. Why still keep it low? > 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. I don't think this 'without too many problems' give a good answer and reason, which this is rather blind to all of us. Maybe, it's me that don't understand the point or you still haven't answer to a real reason so far from what I have read the follows up to your lastest email (Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:53:07 -0500 (EST)). My view is that if we higher the stack size and FreeBSD will have lesser problem by not have 'too small thread stack size', not have to hack in apps and etc. Unless anyone know what real reason (no theory, pls) why FreeBSD keeps the stack size smaller other than Bill Gates's 640 K quote excuse? Cheers, Mezz
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041119211734.LESF29395.lakermmtao08.cox.net>