From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 3 20:55:04 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90FE716A4CE; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 20:55:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE13C43D48; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 20:55:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j23Ksxqx065562; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 12:54:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@ns1.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j23KsxSa065555; Thu, 3 Mar 2005 12:54:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 12:54:58 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <20050303205458.GA49216@ns1.xcllnt.net> References: <4226446B.7020406@freebsd.org> <20050303033115.GA13174@VARK.MIT.EDU> <42269DB0.6070107@freebsd.org> <20050303052902.GA14011@VARK.MIT.EDU> <4226A46B.2090704@freebsd.org> <20050303060357.GA14180@VARK.MIT.EDU> <20050303001403.W811@odysseus.silby.com> <20050303064206.GA14434@VARK.MIT.EDU> <4226B4EA.40308@freebsd.org> <42277709.2070407@elischer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42277709.2070407@elischer.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: John Baldwin cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: Mike Silbersack cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: David Xu cc: David Schultz Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_sig.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 20:55:04 -0000 On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:43:53PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > >>Yeah, with 16K kernel stacks, you'd have to swap a lot of threads > > > > 16K!! > we used to run on 4k, and that was with interrupts using the stack as well.. > now we a e not doing that.. > we should look at stack usage and get it back to 8K at most! :-) (on x86) Thank you for qualifying that last statement. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net