Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 13:43:21 -0400 From: Nikolai Lifanov <lifanov@mail.lifanov.com> To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>, Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xargs -P0 suport Message-ID: <555F6AB9.1040401@mail.lifanov.com> In-Reply-To: <20150522172711.GA15102@dft-labs.eu> References: <a1950a723f8a3eb8bd4eea74198916ae@mail.lifanov.com> <555EA1C0.8010909@freebsd.org> <555F4BB9.1020001@mail.lifanov.com> <555F5A34.3090907@freebsd.org> <20150522172711.GA15102@dft-labs.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/22/15 13:27, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > 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. > GNU xargs uses MAX_INT for this limit. Our xargs performs much worse with it for a reason I haven't investigated. The 5000 number doesn't seem high and I have workflows that do '.... | xargs -n1 -P0 ...' spawning about this many jobs. - Nikolai Lifanov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?555F6AB9.1040401>