Re: lwp resource limit

[Matt Thomas <matt%3am-software.com@localhost>]

On Jun 4, 2012, at 7:19 PM, Christos Zoulas wrote:

> In article <20120605013242.GA7273%panix.com@localhost>,
> Thor Lancelot Simon  <tls%panix.com@localhost> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 06:13:09PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>>> 
>>> That is a good idea! The only problem with it is that ps -sx and the sysctl
>>> limit will not match (the limit will be lower than the sysctl number by the
>>> number of processes). It does have the nice property though that the process
>>> gets created anyway, as it is now (counting the limit).
>>> 
>>> It is a very simple change, and if people prefer it, I will do it.
>> 
>> I think it's truly elegant.  Do it!
> 
> I'll need to burn a bit in the lwp flags to indicate that exit should not
> decrease the count, or hardcode not to do it for lid == 1. Which one do
> you prefer?

The latter is my preference.  How many processes ever have lid 1 exit early?