From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 22 17:27:17 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E957F28; Fri, 22 May 2015 17:27:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0496E1283; Fri, 22 May 2015 17:27:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicmx19 with SMTP id mx19so46129249wic.0; Fri, 22 May 2015 10:27:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=+hyWgHy15MHwjwXq9D02Vsfhrd1e/vdHVmsxLJGwCL0=; b=MRZWKXYl+b4Yl4ebmS1XXrefKv68cdthDwCA0jICO6VA3yAqCldIcntkQ4XmGjMI37 Xt4PKcNYONpbSJEMP+o2zXu2PzmQ8MZ4k13oXzVZtjGqCyvWGACzKGq8pQsEDImamVAn B6FiMmp9QkgFNAovKNIGPghZkGG4n3kkz3AYFGGuvRfyqJxM6xa/KWITt8LpPj3mkZ3C n2miVQ0zr3DV1fijWJFYfxjRO+maGBgTB3freaPrFVzX9mllWnMo5D1A2wDv8/ozUStA 6IQPV0blUNrmB1LPnNuEAksSgTho5Q5Qu467bcbtZmgkB+5gNbyWEkdIlnJxRMKwGDcV lx1g== X-Received: by 10.180.216.40 with SMTP id on8mr9817666wic.55.1432315635468; Fri, 22 May 2015 10:27:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dft-labs.eu (n1x0n-1-pt.tunnel.tserv5.lon1.ipv6.he.net. [2001:470:1f08:1f7::2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fw3sm8651996wic.13.2015.05.22.10.27.13 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 22 May 2015 10:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 19:27:11 +0200 From: Mateusz Guzik To: Allan Jude Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xargs -P0 suport Message-ID: <20150522172711.GA15102@dft-labs.eu> Mail-Followup-To: Mateusz Guzik , Allan Jude , freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <555EA1C0.8010909@freebsd.org> <555F4BB9.1020001@mail.lifanov.com> <555F5A34.3090907@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <555F5A34.3090907@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 17:27:17 -0000 On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:32:52PM -0400, Allan Jude wrote: > There is some question about if nargs is a sane value for maxprocs in > the negative case. 5000 does seem a bit high, and the behaviour can get > wonky depending on the order you specify -P and -n together on the > command line. > > Any suggestions? > GNU xargs imposes no limit whatsoever, but it also supports reallocating its process table, while our xargs allocates one upfront and does not change it. I would say reading hard proc resource limit and using that as the limit would do the job just fine. -- Mateusz Guzik