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 LifanovReceived on Fri May 22 2015 - 15:43:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:57 UTC