Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761602AbXJDVej (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:34:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754597AbXJDVeb (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:34:31 -0400 Received: from mx1.lost-oasis.net ([212.85.153.8]:35154 "EHLO mx1.lost-oasis.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753888AbXJDVea (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:34:30 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 2978 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:34:30 EDT Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 22:44:43 +0200 From: Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Ollie Wild , Peter Zijlstra , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Adrian Bunk , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [BUG] Linux 2.6.23-rc9 and MAX_ARG_PAGES Message-ID: <20071004204443.GA28483@bigip.bigip.mine.nu> Mail-Followup-To: Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer , Linus Torvalds , Ollie Wild , Peter Zijlstra , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Adrian Bunk , Andrew Morton References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Face: %JOeya=Dg!}[/#Go&*&cQ+)){p1c8}u\Fg2Q3&)kothIq|JnWoVzJtCFo~4X What does your "ulimit -s" say? That's actually the first thing I checked. mchouque - /usr/src/kernel/linux %ulimit -s unlimited And for the record, ulimit -a yields: -t: cpu time (seconds) unlimited -f: file size (blocks) unlimited -d: data seg size (kbytes) unlimited -s: stack size (kbytes) unlimited -c: core file size (blocks) 0 -m: resident set size (kbytes) unlimited -u: processes 16375 -n: file descriptors 1024 -l: locked-in-memory size (kb) 32 -v: address space (kb) unlimited -x: file locks unlimited -i: pending signals 16375 -q: bytes in POSIX msg queues 819200 -N 13: 0 -N 14: 0 > I suspect that you might hit the code that limits execve() arguments to > one quarter of the maximum stack size. > > We could change that from 25% to something else (half? three quarters?), > but if you really are hitting that limit, it sounds like you may have a > really small stack size to begin with (ie if 25% is smaller than the old > argument size limit of 128kB, you're running with a stack limit of less > than half a meg, which sounds pretty dang small). > > So I'd like to verify that the stack limit really is the issue, and not > something else. Anything else you'd like me to try? -- Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer mchouque@free.fr The sun itself sees not till heaven clears. -- William Shakespeare -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/