[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19407.20109.308816.104856@stoffel.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:14:21 -0400
From: "John Stoffel" <john@...ffel.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Hedi Berriche <hedi@....com>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
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
>>>>> "Rik" == Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> writes:
Rik> On 04/21/2010 12:59 PM, Hedi Berriche 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.
Rik> That is 15 kernel threads per CPU.
Rik> Reducing the number of kernel threads sounds like a
Rik> useful thing to do.
Isn't that already a project? I thought someone (Jeff? Jorn? Tejun? Bueller
bueller....?) was already proposing a patch set to reduce the number
of kernel threads by having dynamic workqueues instead, so that we
didn't spawn a bunch of threads that never did anything?
John
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists