[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Argument list too long.



On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:13:07 +0200 (CEST)
Dag Wieers <dag wieers com> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 11:01:20PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > > It's not that I'm forcing anyone to use the whole argument space. And it's 
> > > not that I'm arguing to make it 1Gb either.
> 
> Read this again.
> 
> 
> > > I don't see why processing 1Gb arguments would be slower than processing 
> > > 10 times 100Kb arguments. I'd even wildly guess the latter case is slower 
> > > than the first.
> > 
> > Wrong question.  The question is whether adding support for very large,
> > or arbitrarily large (hence swappable) arglist+environment makes the
> > common case (i.e., 1 page) significantly slower, or otherwise negatively
> > impacts the kernel (e.g., resource starvation).  We won't know until someone
> > implements it.  If you are interested in pursuing this, and seeing
> > it done the "right" way, see this post by Jamie Lokier from Mar 2000,
> > along with the surrounding thread:
> > 
> > 	http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0003.0/0887.html
> 
> Well, 1Gb is something very different than I would propose. Replace 1Gb by 
> 256Kb and '10 times 100Kb' by '4 times 64Kb' and you're closer to home.
> 
> But if Jamie Lokier doesn't see any reason to have a limit (!), I rest 
> my case.
> 

Maybe Jamie has had a change of heart since he hasn't implemented it
in the three and a half years since that was written ;o)

Cheers,
Sean





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]