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 _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
