In article <a4f96b90-d2e7-4f98-9b44-a040ded32...@3am-software.com>, Matt Thomas <m...@3am-software.com> wrote: > >On Jun 8, 2012, at 9:19 AM, Christos Zoulas wrote: > >> On Jun 8, 9:00am, m...@3am-software.com (Matt Thomas) wrote: >> -- Subject: Re: lwp resource limit >> >> | >> | On Jun 8, 2012, at 5:24 AM, Christos Zoulas wrote: >> | >> | >> + if (l->l_flag & LW_RESCOUNT) >> | >> >> | >> I don't see the need for this, why not check p_nlwp == 1? >> | >> >> | >> if this is the first lwp for the proc p_nlwp should be 0 so check >> | >> maxproc otherwise maxlwp. >> | > >> | > You are forgetting compat_linux. >> | >> | No I'm not. I'm not using l_lid but the # of lwps in the proc. >> >> I made the change, but now this begs the question to remove the enforce >> argument because I don't like the assymmetry. Should I do that too? And >> ignore kthreads in using a different criterion? > >LW_SYSTEM/LW_INTR threads shouldn't be counted
New diff in http://www.netbsd.org/~christos/maxlwp.diff christos
