appar...@raf.org wrote: > Seth Arnold wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 09:02:18PM -0800, John Johansen wrote: > > > This check is well above the range of values I would recommend (some > > > where between 1-2x the number of cpus. More jobs can help with smaller > > > > Two times makes more sense for most CPUs but eight may be more appropriate > > for e.g. POWER8 systems; I don't know if the online CPUs count includes > > only cores or if the hardware threads are reported too. If only cores, > > then even eight might be low for those beasts but if threads are reported > > too, this might be high for even them. But _some_ limit is certainly best, > > and this is as good a starting point as any inthe absense of data. > > > > Thanks > > i thought arbitrary limits based on no data that are imposed on users > by programmers were generally considered to be a bad idea (at least by > the GNU people, anyway). if there's doubt, why not just let the user > determine what works well on their system and what doesn't? just a thought.
by the way, on my 2 core, 4 thread, core i3, sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN)) reports the number of hardware threads (4), not the number of cores (2). cheers, raf -- AppArmor mailing list AppArmor@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
