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
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"