[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004220743080.9086@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>, Hedi Berriche <hedi@....com>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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 Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Distros don't want to take a patch that adds a new boot param that is
> > not accepted upstream, otherwise they will be stuck forward porting it
> > from now until, well, forever :)
>
> So for an obscure IA64 specific problem you want the upstream kernel to
> port it forward forever instead ?
Ehh. Nobody does ia64 any more. It's dead, Jim.
This is x86. SGI finally long ago gave up on the Intel/HP clusterf*ck.
Which I'm not entirely sure makes the case for the kernel parameter much
stronger, though. I wonder if it's not more appropriate to just have a
total hack saying
if (max_pids < N * max_cpus) {
printk("We have %d CPUs, increasing max_pids to %d\n");
max_pids = N*max_cpus;
}
where "N" is just some random fudge-factor. It's reasonable to expect a
certain minimum number of processes per CPU, after all.
Linus
--
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