Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 10:16:30 +0800 From: "Jun Su" <junsu@delphij.net> To: "Andre Oppermann" <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [UPDATE] new pid allocation patch Message-ID: <opr2xe9szdl8p7vk@mail.frontfree.net> In-Reply-To: <40226429.4010702@freebsd.org> References: <20040129134121.GB53644@frontfree.net> <20040129200442.GA52780@VARK.homeunix.com> <01bd01c3e742$093d83b0$56dea1d3@shasujunmv> <20040131215006.GP908@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <opr2wgxta1l8p7vk@mail.frontfree.net> <40226429.4010702@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:41:29 +0100, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> wrote: > Jun Su wrote: >> Hi All, >> John Baldwin's proc lock commit today made my patch broken, so I have >> revised the patch, and uploaded it to the same position: >> http://www.arbornet.org/~junsu/pid.diff >> The revised patch has been improved based on the feedback. Basically, >> 1. Added a new sysctl value kern.pidmax to control the current pid >> range. >> This value can influence the reuse pid period. The initial value is >> 4096. > > This sysctl name looks very misleading to me. Unless the highest PID > I can get here is actually 4096. > The sysctl should be named as pidrange or some similiar name to avoid the confusing. I just choose a name same as the vairable name. Jun Su >> 2. Change the meaning of PID_MAX back to what it was, and sainty-check >> whether the pid is 5 digit based on PID_MAX. (I think it is impossible >> that >> pid expand PID_MAX for the algorithm nature, though.) >> 3. The initial pid table size is bumped from 1<<5 to 1<<7. > -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?opr2xe9szdl8p7vk>