Re: lwp resource limit

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <A4F96B90-D2E7-4F98-9B44-A040DED326F6%3am-software.com@localhost>,
Matt Thomas  <matt%3am-software.com@localhost> wrote:
>
>On Jun 8, 2012, at 9:19 AM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>
>> On Jun 8,  9:00am, matt%3am-software.com@localhost (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