Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:03:36 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Conrad Meyer <cem@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r326758 - in head/sys/i386: conf include Message-ID: <5A2E6608.5090205@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <20171211105242.GH2272@kib.kiev.ua> References: <201712110432.vBB4WbnE021090@repo.freebsd.org> <20171211091943.GF2272@kib.kiev.ua> <5A2E5D44.9030904@grosbein.net> <20171211105242.GH2272@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11.12.2017 17:52, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> I still wonder if there is really such load pattern that creates "enough threads" >> for i386 to make 4-pages stack troublesome. > Yes, there is such load pattern, it is when you do create threads. Your > load, as described, is static. Peter' stress2 includes some tests which > will highlight the change. > > I am quite impressed by your ability to make generalization from single data > point. Moving issues around because you care about your load, and do not > care about other usage patterns, is certainly the way to go. I do not try to contradict other usage patterns. In fact, I'm eager to know a practical example of such pattern: a task, an application, anything real? I already know how to bring FreeBSD down to its kneels using stress tests but that's not what I'm looking for in this case of kstack_pages.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5A2E6608.5090205>