Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:37:22 +0200 From: Ronald Klop <ronald-freebsd8@klop.yi.org> To: Juha Saarinen <juhasaarinen@gmail.com>, "David G. Lawrence" <dg@dglawrence.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Could ARG_MAX be increased? Message-ID: <opsesoskb58527sy@outgoing.local> In-Reply-To: <b34be8420409231227575cc793@mail.gmail.com> References: <b34be84204092304456066b0a0@mail.gmail.com> <20040923122620.GW16205@nexus.dglawrence.com> <b34be8420409231227575cc793@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 07:27:18 +1200, Juha Saarinen <juhasaarinen@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 05:26:20 -0700, David G. Lawrence > <dg@dglawrence.com> wrote: >> I feel compelled to respond since you mentioned me above and since I >> wrote most of the code involved... :-) >> The main issue with increasing the size of ARG_MAX is that it will >> result >> in more kernel virtual memory being reserved for temporary storage of >> the >> args. This used to be a much larger problem when KVM was scarce, but >> less >> of a problem now with 1GB or more of KVM. The args temporary space is >> allocated out of exec_map (a submap of kernel_map), which is sized to be >> about 16 * ARG_MAX. The '16' is to allow up to 16 processes to >> simultaneously >> exec until additional execs are blocked waiting for KVM to become >> available. Anyway, increasing ARG_MAX to 256K (roughly 4MB of KVM) >> should >> be okay on most systems. Can't it be made dependend on kern.maxusers which is dependend on the max amount of memory available? So people with low memory aren't wasting a lot of memory? Ronald. -- Ronald Klop Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?opsesoskb58527sy>