From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264182AbTEGTUt (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2003 15:20:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264227AbTEGTTO (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2003 15:19:14 -0400 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([208.129.208.51]:28332 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264213AbTEGTRK (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2003 15:17:10 -0400 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 12:31:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: "Richard B. Johnson" cc: Linux kernel Subject: Re: top stack (l)users for 2.5.69 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20030507132024.GB18177@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <20030507135657.GC18177@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <52k7d2pqwm.fsf@topspin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 7 May 2003, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > It is my understanding that there is one kernel stack. If there > is a stack allocated for some "transition", and I guess there > may be, because of the mail I'm getting, then it has absolutely > no purpose whatsoever and is wasted valuable non-paged RAM. > > The reason why system-call parameters are passed in registers > is so that we didn't have the overhead of copying stuff from a > user stack to a kernel stack. > > Does anybody know (not guess) if this was stuff added for the > new non-interrupt 0x80 syscall code? I want to know how a > simple kernel got corrupted into this twisted thing. > > Anybody who has a copy of any of the Intel manuals since '386 > knows that there needs to be only one kernel stack. I don't believe anyone is guessing here :) - Davide