X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CB08F386F47D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com; s=default; t=1598603758; bh=DkYeKKyqr8m4QK7PzwgpZfXt9FMeI0+Cf18Gw/9xt5Q=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: Reply-To:From; b=FzWHajIAKIu5oXzlSH3jHgkU1d/jbMIfZNyEb9b2PXiaKYhkueEps6x453fdhOmMI 5+VBPy471GE05/ZJBuz+LBn89u0o8CDxa9hhVMF5U2iW7oKbkzjPEc1yhtC8yNsSL/ fzlJipwpalESlkS+VBzjEAAHprM9OYQzj50svax8= X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 67C85386F433 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=cygwin.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=corinna-cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 10:35:51 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Sv: Limit for number of child processes Message-ID: <20200828083551.GF3272@calimero.vinschen.de> Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <000401d67ba0$8b1f33b0$a15d9b10$@gmail.com> <20200826175724 DOT GQ3272 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <000701d67c6c$10bcf720$3236e560$@gmail.com> <6d698a32-06bb-a47b-58e6-ceeecca722c9 AT cornell DOT edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6d698a32-06bb-a47b-58e6-ceeecca722c9@cornell.edu> X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:1R38VzyC8XW4oiyqklcNvbizoBBM+t/Pz3F/IMVfU97VO4UuhUH +f5+53slgCyS/WDXpJ1zFnj7hkQ00UN4USMq14UgJT3WEaJe12sOnKTxd4oBLp7LtM6gNUA lG12ZeTMz7Nq7xhN/WRe0RtaI5m51+Bwy6/lqnpvHRecWz6pq62q30U3QzIQNfTYLWqdC5j GvU+oT6hCpXovN8fHCCZg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:ocLyrmpzYQc=:KvchIVZ5hwkDpiORU9yMow aWD0/K8FptNaVegBR1i5CxTuI+xqyjrnOjKJqlY/KmiXscIIR/XUxvQYwTBjmP1C6s4rIY/CT xVJGRVr8x6nSNPHxjRuy2i7UBuTBVamhFGQXBhBFRVrOhEWa63ZdyOrLVyK63BxkuF1+Sqkpf dfGngSKXkTJ2a24blLkGR9RtXwhi+YtDhJS6BuHAa6f37gSthG4PAbzO1VLsihu9uWrmdmbwv 3b6wlaiwVhroTtR/OLsP8X4YCB1S7n9mSgghtG1Vg8Gn9b5UXZDTTmurb3pL27R/q2HJKmuCF a2Qt/OXX6IXDQOR0+wmYp+6bnNRH9qP8QMfGIn0JooLPL/xW2nWIiBcqaFtwsZWdqDB8EhKw+ Ejs6YoSnJAEXYKRPr3+m7JLHLqQw9Pq8l3+tdawbImUDWsjzn+nKYjF9fpaeJNjJYmJt8UNsW WPYAafeWcDkofLvBxO/N1up6KZvSTy1fZc+HekYzZd3bLpvvGdA9Ii0h+t0sibN23Mbkm05Xp 2OSAXj+Kx7SFxqfhMDXSBhEiWSSPI4S1dLeYSBLmPy+Y9a9rtKvr5D24R7OjipUaPvATY05+F mi2cj/52PjDzqI5TmIINgSnSJqXxIYzLPzReWnSXsIS7vMR04n7xr/EnA5F/zFDvNeLQlL3jR pnnqXLxA1kgms4atwaurp2DAxHVpvaL5Is6kavxwMd0+j3twCUHQ9MjpwXsuop2YDLKZBsaJh ++pSJ/8RYZvSzvCxK1GUZXTnywraxbeNov0FTGxQ+lGEKKCSAXRWO0mSI0qEeuG70B098rsFv jrcC3Be+KpbpNuhe5sqcSb9Un2SMUKVj6H1pmeWT/f6U9EcXAHu3wEjXP3Y+xgFSjcAk3bH26 R9lQGGYY4DFqfUCgCSbQ== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, GOOD_FROM_CORINNA_CYGWIN, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NEUTRAL, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com Sender: "Cygwin" On Aug 27 21:42, Ken Brown via Cygwin wrote: > On 8/27/2020 8:17 AM, Kristian Ivarsson via Cygwin wrote: > > Hi Corinna > > > > > > Dear cygwin folks > > > > > > > > It seems like there's a limit of the number of possible child > > > > processes defined to 256 with 'NPROCS' in //winsup/cygwin/child_info.h > > > > used in 'cprocs' in //winsup/cygwin/sigproc.cc > > > > > > > > 256 is quite few possible children in an enterprise environment and > > > > perhaps the limit should be limited by the physical resources or > > > possibly Windows ? > > > > > > The info has to be kept available in the process itself so we need this > > > array of NPROCS * sizeof (pinfo). > > > > > > Of course, there's no reason to use a static array, the code could just as > > > well use a dynamically allocated array or a linked list. It's just not > > > the way it is right now and would need a patch or rewrite. > > > > > > As for the static array, sizeof pinfo is 64, so the current size of the > > > array is just 16K. We could easily bump it to 64K with NPROCS raised to > > > 1024 for the next Cygwin release, at least on 64 bit. > > > I don't think we should raise this limit for 32 bit Cygwin, which is kind > > > of EOL anyway, given the massive restrictions. > > > > I don't know the exact purpose of this and how the cprocs is used, but I'd > > prefer something totally dynamic 7 days out of 7 or otherwise another limit > > would just bite you in the ass some other day instead ;-) > > > > A linked list could be used if you wanna optimize (dynamic) memory usage but > > an (amortized) array would probably provide faster linear search but I guess > > simplicity of the code and external functionality is the most important > > demands for this choice > > Any change here (aside from just increasing NPROCS) would have to be done > with care to avoid a performance hit. I looked at the history of changes to > sigproc.cc, and I found commit 4ce15a49 in 2001 in which a static array > something like cprocs was replaced by a dynamically allocated buffer in > order to save DLL space. This was reverted 3 days later (commit e2ea684e) > because of performance issues. Yup, that's one of the problems to keep in mind. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple