15 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-threadsQuestion about our default pthread st...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Alexander Nedotsukov | Nov 18, 2004 11:54 pm | |
| Daniel Eischen | Nov 19, 2004 8:01 am | |
| Joe Marcus Clarke | Nov 19, 2004 9:52 am | |
| Daniel Eischen | Nov 19, 2004 10:09 am | |
| Joe Marcus Clarke | Nov 19, 2004 10:16 am | |
| Daniel Eischen | Nov 19, 2004 11:53 am | |
| mez...@cox.net | Nov 19, 2004 1:21 pm | |
| Joe Marcus Clarke | Nov 19, 2004 2:07 pm | |
| Niall Douglas | Nov 20, 2004 2:10 am | |
| Alexander Nedotsukov | Nov 22, 2004 5:48 am | |
| Daniel Eischen | Nov 22, 2004 6:14 am | |
| Joe Marcus Clarke | Nov 22, 2004 6:28 am | |
| Alexander Nedotsukov | Nov 22, 2004 8:30 am | |
| Craig Rodrigues | Nov 26, 2004 10:56 am | |
| Alexander Nedotsukov | Nov 29, 2004 12:11 am |
| Subject: | Question about our default pthread stack size | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Alexander Nedotsukov (bla...@FreeBSD.org) | |
| Date: | Nov 18, 2004 11:54:39 pm | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-threads | |
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 fact that specs isn't clear about that number and therefore portable application must reserve it's own stack. But reality is sucks. Nobody cares about it for the one simple reason the majority of popular OSes provides at least megabyte of memory for the purpose by default. More other please read what for example Sun tells to developers about stack size allocation:
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-5137/6mba5vpjc?a=view#attrib-33670
How much people will care after reading this?
If there is no any technical issue which prevent us from bumping default thread stack size I propose to do this. If smaller default stack sizes gains us some significant benefits let's make it system wide or per process tunable (ie use getrlimit(RLIMIT_STACK)).
All the best, Alexander.