[Yokohiii]

Escape analysis accounts for size, so it wouldn't even permit it.

The initial stack size seems to be 2kb, a more on a few systems. So far I understand you can allocate a large local i.e. 8kb, that doesn't escape and grow the stack immediately. (Of course that adds up if you have a chain of calls with smaller allocs). So recursion is certainly not the only concern.

[foldr]

For that to be a problem you either have to have one function that allocates an enormous number of non-escaping objects below the size limit (if the Go compiler doesn't take the total size of all a function's non-escaping allocations into account – I don't know), or a very long series of nested function calls, which in practice is only likely to arise if there are recursive calls.

[Yokohiii]

I think we mix things up here. But be aware of my newbie knowledge.

I am pretty sure the escape analysis doesn't affect the initial stack size. Escape analysis does determine where an allocation lives. So if your allocation is lower then what escape analysis considers heap and bigger then the initial stack size, the stack needs to grow.

What I am certain about, is that I have runtime.newstack calls accounting for +20% of my benchmark times (go testing). My code is quite shallow (3-4 calls deep) and anything of size should be on the heap (global/preallocated) and the code has zero allocations. I don't use goroutines either, it might me I still make a mistake or it's the overhead from the testing benchmark. But this obviously doesn't seem to be anything super unusual.

[foldr]

I don't know about your code, but in general, goroutine stacks are designed to start small and grow. There is nothing concerning about this. A call to runtime.newstack triggered by a large stack-allocated value would generally be cheaper than the corresponding heap allocation.

[Yokohiii]

I found my issue, I was creating a 256 item fixed array of a 2*uint8 struct in my code. That was enough to cause newstack calls. It now went down from varying 10% to roughly 1%. Oddly enough it didn't change the ns/op a bit. I guess some mix of workload related irrelevancy and inaccurate reporting or another oversight on my side.