[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100422170801.GZ5677@sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:08:02 -0500
From: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, 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
> 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.
How about:
pid_max_min = max(pid_max_min, 19 * num_possible_cpus());
pid_max_baseline = 2048 * num_possible_cpus();
if (pid_max < pid_max_baseline) {
printk("We have %d CPUs, increasing pid_max to %d\n"...
pid_max = pid_max_baseline;
}
This would scale pid_max_min by a sane amount, leave the default value
of pid_max_min and pid_max untouched below 16 cpus and then scale both
up linearly beyond that.
Robin
--
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