linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: John Stoffel <john@stoffel.org>, Hedi Berriche <hedi@sgi.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/1] init: Provide a kernel start parameter to increase pid_max v2
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:22:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100421232200.GA22877@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BCF80F2.2010906@redhat.com>

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 06:49:22PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 04/21/2010 06:24 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> >Tejun's work has much better long term potential, but this is still an
> >issue for large #cpu systems, which we want Linux to support well.  This
> >isn't a "specialized niche" for Linux, at all, Linux pretty much
> >dominates this hardware area, and it would be nice to ensure that this
> >continues.
> 
> Yes, the pid_max patch seems like a decent stop gap for
> distro kernels right now.  However, Tejun's work is
> probably a more appropriate path forward.

Distros don't want to take a patch that adds a new boot param that is
not accepted upstream, otherwise they will be stuck forward porting it
from now until, well, forever :)

As this solves a problem that people are having today, on the kernel.org
kernel, on a known machine, and we really don't know when the "reduce
the number of processes per cpu" work will be done, or if it really will
solve this issue, then why can't we take it now?  If the work does solve
the problem in the future, then we can take the command line option out,
and everyone is happy.

Sound reasonable?

thanks,

greg k-h

  reply	other threads:[~2010-04-21 23:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-04-21  1:40 [Patch 1/1] init: Provide a kernel start parameter to increase pid_max Mike Travis
2010-04-21  1:52 ` [Patch 1/1] init: Provide a kernel start parameter to increase pid_max v2 Mike Travis
2010-04-21  9:23   ` Alan Cox
2010-04-21 16:59     ` Hedi Berriche
2010-04-21 17:18       ` Rik van Riel
2010-04-21 17:54         ` Mike Travis
2010-04-21 19:14         ` John Stoffel
2010-04-21 19:33           ` Hedi Berriche
2010-04-21 20:10             ` John Stoffel
2010-04-21 22:24               ` Greg KH
2010-04-21 22:49                 ` Rik van Riel
2010-04-21 23:22                   ` Greg KH [this message]
2010-04-22  9:28                     ` Alan Cox
2010-04-22 12:58                       ` Jack Steiner
2010-04-22 13:57                       ` Robin Holt
2010-04-22 14:48                       ` Linus Torvalds
2010-04-22 17:08                         ` Robin Holt
2010-04-22 18:10                           ` John Stoffel
2010-04-22 20:35                           ` Andrew Morton
2010-04-25  7:16                         ` Pavel Machek
2010-04-25 17:15                           ` Linus Torvalds
2010-04-25 17:27                             ` Linus Torvalds
2010-04-25 12:13                               ` Pavel Machek
2010-04-26 19:48                             ` [Patch 1/1] init: Provide a kernel start parameter to increase pid_max v3 Mike Travis
2010-04-26 20:46                               ` Greg KH
2010-04-27  0:43                                 ` Mike Travis
2010-04-27  0:42                               ` [Patch 1/1] init: Increase pid_max based on num_possible_cpus v4 Mike Travis
2010-04-21 17:58       ` [Patch 1/1] init: Provide a kernel start parameter to increase pid_max v2 Alan Cox
2010-04-21 19:12         ` Hedi Berriche
2010-04-21 19:51           ` Greg KH
2010-04-21 20:12             ` Hedi Berriche
2010-04-21 22:05           ` Jack Steiner

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=20100421232200.GA22877@suse.de \
    --to=gregkh@suse.de \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=hedi@sgi.com \
    --cc=holt@sgi.com \
    --cc=john@stoffel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=steiner@sgi.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=travis@sgi.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).