Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:37:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:37:35 -0400 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:15497 "HELO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:37:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:39:55 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Paul Larson Cc: Linus Torvalds , lkml Subject: Re: pid_max hang again... In-Reply-To: <1031320378.24570.44.camel@plars.austin.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1167 Lines: 28 On 6 Sep 2002, Paul Larson wrote: > It looks like this change dropped us back to the same error all this was > originally supposed to fix. When you hit PID_MAX, get_pid() starts > looping forever looking for a free pid and hangs. I could probably make > my original fix work on this very easily if you'd like. yes please send a patch for this. Reintroduction of the looping bug was unintended. > I wonder though, would it be possible to do this in a more simple way by > just throttling max_threads back to something more sane if it gets > defaulted too high? Since it gets checked before we even get to the > get_pid call in copy_process(). That would keep the number of processes > down to a sane level without the risk. this is a good approach as well, but now pid_max can be adjusted runtime so truncating max_threads as a side-effect looks a bit problematic. We should rather fail the fork() cleanly. Ingo - 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/