linux-kernel - Re: [Patch 1/1] init: Provide a kernel start parameter to increase pid

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100421185852.3397f1da@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:58:52 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Hedi Berriche <hedi@....com>
Cc:	Mike Travis <travis@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Robin Holt <holt@....com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/1] init: Provide a kernel start parameter to increase
 pid_max v2

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:59:34 +0100
Hedi Berriche <hedi@....com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:20 Alan Cox wrote:
> | > of 32k will not be enough.  A system with 1664 CPU's, there are 25163 processes
> | > started before the login prompt.  It's estimated that with 2048 CPU's we will pass
> | 
> | Is that perhaps the bug not the 32K limit?
> 
> Doubt it: I just checked on an *idle* 1664 CPUs system and I can see 26844
> tasks, all but few being kernel threads.

So why have we got 26844 tasks. Isn't that a rather more relevant
question.

And as I asked before - how does Tejun's work on sanitizing work queues
affect this ?

Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/