From: Hubertus Franke <frankeh@watson.ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>,
Andries Brouwer <aebr@win.tue.nl>,
Paul Larson <plars@austin.ibm.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <andrea@suse.de>,
<gh@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Analysis for Linux-2.5 fix/improve get_pid(), comparing various approaches
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 14:18:07 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200208091418.07676.frankeh@watson.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208090901090.1547-100000@home.transmeta.com>
On Friday 09 August 2002 12:05 pm, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Hubertus Franke wrote:
> > I dragged the various algorithms into a userlevel test program to figure
> > out where the cut off points are with PID_MAX=32768. In this testprogram
> > I maintain A tasks, and for 10 rounds (delete D random tasks and
> > reallocate D tasks again) resulting in T=10*D total measured allocations.
>
> Mind re-doing that with PID_MAX=999999 or similar? The whole point of the
> current simple algorithm is that the common case (nay, done right, the
> _only_ case) is where the number of threads << PID_MAX.
>
Don't have time right now...
Simply look at the numbers for the ratio you are expected.
I would be very surprise if the relative curves would change
when moving to 132K tasks and also populate the pid space only by
let's say 25%.
Otherwise, Paul can you run this....
> That certainly used to be true with PID_MAX=32768 (not many people may
> realize it, but in 1991 the maximum number of tasks in the system was
> limited to 63, simply because of how the VM carved out the 4GB address
> space).
>
> Things have changed, but considering that some people think that 32k
> threads are a limitation already, and that the current code should work
> fine (and be pretty much optimal) with a larger PID_MAX, I really think
> it's unfair to not even benchmark that case..
>
> Linus
--
-- Hubertus Franke (frankeh@watson.ibm.com)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-09 18:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-07 22:03 [PATCH] Linux-2.5 fix/improve get_pid() Paul Larson
2002-08-07 23:06 ` Andrew Morton
2002-08-08 0:24 ` Andries Brouwer
2002-08-08 19:42 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-08-08 20:47 ` Andries Brouwer
2002-08-09 11:22 ` Analysis for Linux-2.5 fix/improve get_pid(), comparing various approaches Hubertus Franke
2002-08-09 15:36 ` Andries Brouwer
2002-08-09 18:14 ` Hubertus Franke
2002-08-09 16:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-09 18:18 ` Hubertus Franke [this message]
2002-08-08 20:24 ` [PATCH] Linux-2.5 fix/improve get_pid() Linus Torvalds
2002-08-08 21:30 ` H. Peter Anvin
2002-08-08 21:45 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-08-09 4:42 ` William Lee Irwin III
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=200208091418.07676.frankeh@watson.ibm.com \
--to=frankeh@watson.ibm.com \
--cc=aebr@win.tue.nl \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=gh@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=plars@austin.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.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