Re: Proposal to increase the default vm.max_map_count value

[Robin Candau]

On 4/2/24 9:14 AM, Robin Candau wrote:

On April 1, 2024 12:09:47 PM UTC, Robin Candau <an...@archlinux.org> wrote:

    On 3/25/24 9:10 AM, Robin Candau wrote:

        Hi everyone,

        I'm writing this mail as proposal to increase the default
        `vm.max_map_count` value in Arch Linux.


    It's been a week since this proposal thread [1] was made. For now it
    only received a few but all positives feedback (both from staff
    members and users in a related thread on arch-general [2]).

    Do we have any more thoughts anyone wants to share?

    Also, if we are to implement this change, anyone has an opinion
    about which package should provide it? So far, the following
    packages have been mentioned:
    - systemd (as Fedora did)
    - procps-ng (as Ubuntu did)
    - filesystem

    Given that the proposal goes through, I'll create the MR to the
    chosen package accordingly. Also, despite this change being
    impact-free (as far as we can tell), I think a related news item to
    inform users about this change would be a great idea (I'll write
    that as well).

    Please, share your opinion about the change itself or the best
    package to provide it if you have any :)

    [1]

https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org/thread/5GU7ZUFI25T2IRXIQ62YYERQKIPE3U6E/ <https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org/thread/5GU7ZUFI25T2IRXIQ62YYERQKIPE3U6E/>

    [2]

https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-gene...@lists.archlinux.org/thread/7X2LRLDCR3L3JMKBM6ZJYUKCXJ6A36QL/ <https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-gene...@lists.archlinux.org/thread/7X2LRLDCR3L3JMKBM6ZJYUKCXJ6A36QL/>

On 4/1/24 11:11 PM, Ehalls wrote:

I would keep it out of systemd. Do you think it is the approproate place?

(Copying the above response I received from someone off-list, as it is staff only)

Since the change consists of shipping a sysctl file and that sysctl is provided by procps-ng, I personally think procps-ng is the appropriate place.

Another suggestion I got off-list is to ship that change with the kernel.






[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_Linux#Simplicity

--
Regards,
Robin Candau / Antiz

While I get why it would make sense, we maintain and support multiple kernel packages (6 currently). Making this change __the default__ (which is the aim of this proposal) will imply to ship it in every kernel packages we currently maintain on Arch side (and in every kernel packages we will potentially add in the future). I'm personally more in favor of shipping this change in one central place to avoid the additional maintenance eventually implied by having it in multiple places at once. Shipping it in nprocps-ng felt reasonable to me (as it's the package providing `sysctl`) but if shipping such a "downstream" change to the nprocps-ng package is a concern regarding our "simplicity" principle [1], then I think the filesystem package would be the right place instead.

OpenPGP_0xFDC3040B92ACA748.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature