linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	John Stoffel <john@stoffel.org>, Hedi Berriche <hedi@sgi.com>,
	Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	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: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:58:00 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100422125800.GA22285@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100422102852.72837494@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:28:52AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 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 :)
> 
> So for an obscure IA64 specific problem you want the upstream kernel to
> port it forward forever instead ?

FWIW, the problem is occurring on systems that use x86 processors - not
IA64.


> > 
> > 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?
> 
> No - to start with it would be far saner for everything involved if the
> 4096 processor minority fixed it for the moment in their arch code by
> doing something like
> 
> 	if (max_pids < PIDS_PER_CPU * num_cpus) {
> 		max_pids = ...
> 		printk(something informative)
> 	}
> 
> in their __init marked code.
> 
> Because when Tejun's stuff is in the patch can go away, and also if it's
> not sufficient then the patch above should keep it sane when they go to
> 32000 cpus or whatever is next.
> 
> Alan

  reply	other threads:[~2010-04-22 12:58 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
2010-04-22  9:28                     ` Alan Cox
2010-04-22 12:58                       ` Jack Steiner [this message]
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=20100422125800.GA22285@sgi.com \
    --to=steiner@sgi.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=gregkh@suse.de \
    --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=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).