From: Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org>
To: Thomas Devoogdt <thomas@devoogdt.com>
Cc: buildroot@buildroot.org,
Thomas Devoogdt <thomas.devoogdt@barco.com>,
Bart Van Severen <bart.vanseveren@barco.com>
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v1 2/2] package/libwebsockets: fix LWS_MAX_SMP when BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_THREADS is set
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 17:06:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241029170639.52600e61@windsurf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACXRmJgoySzrYAu0KCNSfnXAxrFwameDABJR-AXoAiYxSX+2iQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Thomas,
On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:25:26 +0200
Thomas Devoogdt <thomas@devoogdt.com> wrote:
> > The question is then why 32, and not 8, 16, or 64 ?
>
> The original comment mentioned the number 32, so it makes sense to keep that 32.
>
> Also, see this older manual
> https://libwebsockets.org/lws-api-doc-master/html/md_README.coding.html:
> "You can control the context basic data allocation for multithreading
> from Cmake using -DLWS_MAX_SMP=, if not given it's set to 32."
>
> And this newer manual
> https://libwebsockets.org/lws-api-doc-master/html/md_READMEs_README_8coding.html:
> "You can control the context basic data allocation for multithreading
> from Cmake using -DLWS_MAX_SMP=, if not given it's set to 1. "
>
> So, given that the original manual talks about 32, it makes sense to
> use it, even though it is no longer valid.
> Other values will also work, as long the minimum is 2. But I guess
> that this 32 is a good trade-off.
It felt a bit random, but OK, I guess there's no "good" value there.
Thanks for the feedback!
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-29 16:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-20 6:20 [Buildroot] [PATCH v1 1/2] package/libwebsockets: add an option to enable lws async dns Thomas Devoogdt
2024-09-20 6:20 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v1 2/2] package/libwebsockets: fix LWS_MAX_SMP when BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_THREADS is set Thomas Devoogdt
2024-10-26 14:43 ` Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot
2024-10-26 18:25 ` Thomas Devoogdt
2024-10-29 16:06 ` Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot [this message]
2025-02-04 12:36 ` Thomas Devoogdt
2026-02-04 14:37 ` Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot
2024-10-26 14:42 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH v1 1/2] package/libwebsockets: add an option to enable lws async dns Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20241029170639.52600e61@windsurf \
--to=buildroot@buildroot.org \
--cc=bart.vanseveren@barco.com \
--cc=thomas.devoogdt@barco.com \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=thomas@devoogdt.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox