Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 14:43:47 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 241710] please increase ARG_MAX Message-ID: <bug-241710-227-NTQA8zF0Fb@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-241710-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-241710-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D241710 --- Comment #12 from Pedro F. Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Konstantin Belousov from comment #11) > (In reply to Pedro F. Giffuni from comment #10) > 2048 is a strange multiplicator. I can write it 2 * 1024. I looked around and I noticed the value was a mult= iple of 1024 on most platforms. It is admitedly an arbitrarily a number between = what we have and what Illumos uses for 32 bit archs. Having uncertain multiplier= s is better than uncertain numbers. > But you still ignore the crucial question: does increase cause issues for= KVA > starved arches. If it is not, then introducing such gratuitous differenc= e is=20 > pointless. If it is, might be we should bump the size for LP64 much more= =20 > aggressive. I am indeed ignoring the question :(. I admitedly don't know what I am doing here (note that I haven't grabbed the PR), I am just doing an educated gues= s in the hopes that someone else comes with a real solution. I understand it would be better to have a unique value for all platforms, I just don't have a KVA-starved platform to test it or sufficient understandi= ng on the kernel to determine it (I am looking at exec_alloc_args_kva() and I = see a linked list, beyond that the numbers escape me). OTOH, I see historic evidence that we don't want to jump such values arbitrarily. If we are severely KVA limited on non _LP64 platforms, then it makes perfect sense to avoid the bump on those platforms (I doubt we want to run Code Ast= er on a Raspberry Pi anyways), and Illumos discriminates archs already although with much higher values. I personally don't see a reason to bump ARG_MAX mo= re than absolutely necessary: I just want software to compile and wasting more precious KVA memory doesn't serve any purpose. If we have to revise the val= ue every ten years, so be it: people can always check the ARG_MAX value with getconf and report it. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-241710-227-NTQA8zF0Fb>