From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 22:10:08 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Subject: Re: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH] lib/core/fiber: Initialize stack_watermark where appropriate Message-ID: <20190318191008.GA13557@chai> References: <20190318172352.14128-1-gorcunov@gmail.com> <20190318175246.22utl4hoc3jnxuk2@esperanza> <20190318185529.GA11507@chai> <20190318190446.GD2469@uranus.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190318190446.GD2469@uranus.lan> To: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-ID: * Cyrill Gorcunov [19/03/18 22:07]: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 09:55:29PM +0300, Konstantin Osipov wrote: > > * Vladimir Davydov [19/03/18 20:56]: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 08:23:52PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > > > The stack_watermark member declared with HAVE_MADV_DONTNEED wrap, > > > > so need to guard it here the same way. > > > > What is the reason to keep the poison pool 8 elements now that it > > is only used to save on madvise() invocations and is put in a > > random position? Shouldn't 1 element be enough? > > Even 8 elements are not guarantee us from false positives and > with a sole element the situation would be even worse. Well, then let's increase the number of elements to 32 or 64, or, better yet, 128, to make the situation better. Why did you guys choose 8? -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia, +7 903 626 22 32 http://tarantool.io - www.twitter.com/kostja_osipov