Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 21:37:09 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> Cc: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r355828 - head/sys/sys Message-ID: <d66f2536-7435-8c9a-930e-dd33417d18ed@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20191217230746.GB25842@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <201912162355.xBGNtUq6078840@repo.freebsd.org> <201912170442.xBH4gUOg063777@slippy.cwsent.com> <f6997e95-2b35-1975-2008-5b374195458b@FreeBSD.org> <20191217230746.GB25842@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17/12/2019 18:07, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 01:28:20PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >> On 16/12/2019 23:42, Cy Schubert wrote: >>> In message <201912162355.xBGNtUq6078840@repo.freebsd.org>, "Pedro F. >>> Giffuni" w >>> rites: >>>> Author: pfg >>>> Date: Mon Dec 16 23:55:30 2019 >>>> New Revision: 355828 >>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/355828 >>>> >>>> Log: >>>> Double the size of ARG_MAX on LP64 platforms. >>>> >>>> As modern software keeps growing in size, we get requests to update the >>>> value of ARG_MAX in order to link the resulting object files. Other OSs >>>> have much higher values but Increasiong ARG_MAX has a multiplied effect on >>>> KVA, so just bumping this value is dangerous in some archs like ARM32 that >>>> can exhaust KVA rather easily. >>>> >>>> While it would be better to have a unique value for all archs, other OSs >>>> (Illumos in partidular) can have different ARG_MAX limits depending on the >>>> platform, For now we want to be really conservative so we are avoidng >>>> the change on ILP32 and in the alternative case we only double it since tha >>>> t >>>> seems to work well enough for recent Code Aster. >>>> >>>> I was planning to bump the _FreeBSD_version but it was bumped recently >>>> (r355798) so we can reuse the 1300068 value for this change. >>> This doesn't seem right. Each bump should be for a distinct change and >>> documented as such. >> TBH, it is just not worth it: this change will currently benefit only >> one port (french/aster) and the update won't be committed until after >> the MFC is done. > An MFC is a quite long-term solution. If merged to 11 and 12 then any > workarounds can't be removed until 11.3 and 12.1 are EOL since we'll be > building packages there until that point. Yes. I am planning to MFC only to 12-stable as 11-stable may not be worth bothering. Pedro. > -- Brooks
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d66f2536-7435-8c9a-930e-dd33417d18ed>