On 11/30/2015 02:42 PM, [email protected] wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > >> Seth Arnold wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 09:02:18PM -0800, John Johansen wrote: >>>> This check is well above the range of values I would recommend (some >>>> where between 1-2x the number of cpus. More jobs can help with smaller >>> >>> Two times makes more sense for most CPUs but eight may be more appropriate >>> for e.g. POWER8 systems; I don't know if the online CPUs count includes >>> only cores or if the hardware threads are reported too. If only cores, >>> then even eight might be low for those beasts but if threads are reported >>> too, this might be high for even them. But _some_ limit is certainly best, >>> and this is as good a starting point as any inthe absense of data. >>> >>> Thanks >> >> i thought arbitrary limits based on no data that are imposed on users >> by programmers were generally considered to be a bad idea (at least by >> the GNU people, anyway). if there's doubt, why not just let the user >> determine what works well on their system and what doesn't? just a thought. > > by the way, on my 2 core, 4 thread, core i3, sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN)) > reports the number of hardware threads (4), not the number of cores (2). > raf, thanks for the data point.
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
