From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965388AbcKJRkF (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:40:05 -0500 Received: from frisell.zx2c4.com ([192.95.5.64]:50970 "EHLO frisell.zx2c4.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965117AbcKJRkC (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:40:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 18:39:54 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: Proposal: HAVE_SEPARATE_IRQ_STACK? To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: LKML , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, WireGuard mailing list , k@vodka.home.kg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Thomas, On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Do not even think about going there. That's going to be a major > mess. Lol! Okay. Thank you for reigning in my clearly reckless propensities... Sometimes playing in traffic is awfully tempting. > > As a short time workaround you can increase THREAD_SIZE_ORDER for now and > then fix it proper with switching to seperate irq stacks. Okay. I think in the end I'll kmalloc, accept the 16% slowdown [1], and focus efforts on having a separate IRQ stack. Matt emailed in this thread saying he was already looking into it, so I think by the time that slowdown makes a difference, we'll have the right pieces in place anyway. Thanks for the guidance here. Regards, Jason [1] https://git.zx2c4.com/WireGuard/commit/?id=cc3d7df096a88cdf96d016bdcb2f78fa03abb6f3