From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 12:28:10 +0100
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] netstress: explicitly set a thread stack size
In-Reply-To: <e971647d-6cac-fa39-9dad-7e993375fd21@oracle.com>
References: <edf96c93-8f16-6545-629a-be727d4c8eb2@oracle.com>
 <OFCE604BCE.4F62924B-ONC125862B.004801C0-C125862B.0048027B@avm.de>
 <OF47EE0279.8BED1D35-ONC125862C.0051B56D-C125862C.0051B570@avm.de>
 <20201126150349.GB4646@yuki.lan>
 <e971647d-6cac-fa39-9dad-7e993375fd21@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <20201127112810.GA2329@yuki.lan>
List-Id: <ltp.lists.linux.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ltp@lists.linux.it

Hi!
> >> I'm reluctant to use a static value here as max_msg_len may be modified
> >> by command line arguments.
> > 
> > Wouldn't it be easier to use malloc() instead of putting large data
> > structures on the stack and working around that by increasing the
> > limits?
> 
> In the current server implementation it would hurt performance, so
> I assume it would also require to make a memory/thread-pool...

Okay, then increasing limits sound like a reasonable workaround for the
time being.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz