From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:41:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:41:19 -0500 Received: from nat-pool-meridian.redhat.com ([12.107.208.200]:32987 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:41:13 -0500 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:41:10 -0500 From: Pete Zaitcev To: Rainer Krienke Cc: Pete Zaitcev , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: 2.4.17:Increase number of anonymous filesystems beyond 256? Message-ID: <20020125124110.A357@devserv.devel.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <200201240858.g0O8wnH03603@bliss.uni-koblenz.de> <20020124121649.A7722@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <200201250728.g0P7SDH26738@bliss.uni-koblenz.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200201250728.g0P7SDH26738@bliss.uni-koblenz.de>; from krienke@uni-koblenz.de on Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 08:28:13AM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > From: Rainer Krienke > Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 08:28:13 +0100 > > Rainer, you missed the point. Nobody cares about small things > > such as "cannot start nfsd" while your 4096 mounts patch > > simply CORRUPTS YOUR DATA TO HELL. > > Well I never said, I really knew what I was doing:-). Thats exacly why I > asked about why to use more major devices? OK the anser to this question > seems to be that minor devices may only be 8 bit due to the static nature of > some kernel structures. Right? Close enough... Actual reason is the implementation of MINOR(). > > If you need more than 1200 mounts, you have to add more majors > > to my patch. There is a number of them between 115 and 198. > > I suspect scalability problems may become evident > > with this approach, but it will work. > > The solution Richard posted seems to be interesting at this point isn't it? I thought about the rgooch's suggestion, it sounds good for 2.5. Red Hat do not ship devfs enabled currently, and I cannot use his allocation function if someone uses static majors, or some modules may not load. The patch does include a safety element (majorhog_xxx) that reserves majors properly. The devfs would make that unnecessary. -- Pete