[WireGuard] Proposal: HAVE_SEPARATE_IRQ_STACK?

Thomas Gleixner tglx at linutronix.de
Thu Nov 10 14:00:33 CET 2016

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> wrote:
> > Does the slowdown come from the kmalloc overhead or mostly from the less
> > efficient code?
> >
> > If it's mainly kmalloc, then you can preallocate the buffer once for the
> > kthread you're running in and be done with it. If it's the code, then bad
> > luck.
> I fear both. GCC can optimize stack variables in ways that it cannot
> optimize various memory reads and writes.

The question is how much of it is code and how much of it is the kmalloc.
> Strangely, the solution that appeals to me most at the moment is to
> kmalloc (or vmalloc?) a new stack, copy over thread_info, and fiddle
> with the stack registers. I don't see any APIs, however, for a
> platform independent way of doing this. And maybe this is a horrible
> idea. But at least it'd allow me to keep my stack-based code the
> same...

Do not even think about going there. That's going to be a major

As a short time workaround you can increase THREAD_SIZE_ORDER for now and
then fix it proper with switching to seperate irq stacks.



More information about the WireGuard mailing list