On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 08:06:03PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:38:40AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:30
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 08:06:03PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:38:40AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
>> > > There is
>> > > no slippery slope for sy
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 08:06:03PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:38:40AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
> > > There is
> > > no slippery slope for systems to move away, no need to backport
> > > anything. We seem
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:38:40AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
> > There is
> > no slippery slope for systems to move away, no need to backport
> > anything. We seem to agree that a better solution is possible (throttle
> > number of concurren
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 09:50:15AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:22:01PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 02:58:2
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 09:50:15AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:22:01PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 02:58:29PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >> > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:22:01PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 02:58:29PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 02:45:29PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> > > On May 19, 2017 1:45 PM, "
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:22:01PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 02:58:29PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 02:45:29PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On May 19, 2017 1:45 PM, "Dmitry Torokhov"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 18, 20
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 02:58:29PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 02:45:29PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On May 19, 2017 1:45 PM, "Dmitry Torokhov"
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 08:24:39PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > We currently statically
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 02:45:29PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On May 19, 2017 1:45 PM, "Dmitry Torokhov"
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 08:24:39PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > We currently statically limit the number of modprobe threads which
> > we allow to run concurrently t
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 08:24:39PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> We currently statically limit the number of modprobe threads which
> we allow to run concurrently to 50. As per Keith Owens, this was a
> completely arbitrary value, and it was set in the 2.3.38 days [0]
> over 16 years ago in yea
We currently statically limit the number of modprobe threads which
we allow to run concurrently to 50. As per Keith Owens, this was a
completely arbitrary value, and it was set in the 2.3.38 days [0]
over 16 years ago in year 2000.
Although we haven't yet hit our lower limits, experimentation [1]
12 matches
Mail list logo