[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <thp7quwb52md3f4vguhoe2ynf6qm4a3fibtwsjywxyqjpwudgp@qcld4t66c7iy>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 16:32:07 +0200
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Tycho Andersen <tandersen@...flix.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kernel/pid: Remove default pid_max value
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 03:03:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> A large increase in the maximum number of processes.
The change from (some) default to effective infinity is the crux of the
change. Because that is only a number.
(Thus I don't find the number's 12700% increase alone a big change.)
Actual maximum amount of processes is "workload dependent" and hence
should be determined based on the particular workload.
> Or did I misinterpret?
I thought you saw an issue with projection of that number into sizings
based on the default. Which of them comprises the large change in your
eyes?
Thanks,
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists