svn commit: r355828 - head/sys/sys

[Pedro Giffuni]

On 17/12/2019 18:07, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 01:28:20PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> On 16/12/2019 23:42, Cy Schubert wrote:
>>> In message <201912162355.xBGNtUq6078840 at repo.freebsd.org>, "Pedro F.
>>> Giffuni" w
>>> rites:
>>>> Author: pfg
>>>> Date: Mon Dec 16 23:55:30 2019
>>>> New Revision: 355828
>>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/355828
>>>>
>>>> Log:
>>>>     Double the size of ARG_MAX on LP64 platforms.
>>>>     
>>>>     As modern software keeps growing in size, we get requests to update the
>>>>     value of ARG_MAX in order to link the resulting object files. Other OSs
>>>>     have much higher values but Increasiong ARG_MAX has a multiplied effect on
>>>>     KVA, so just bumping this value is dangerous in some archs like ARM32 that
>>>>     can exhaust KVA rather easily.
>>>>     
>>>>     While it would be better to have a unique value for all archs, other OSs
>>>>     (Illumos in partidular) can have different ARG_MAX limits depending on the
>>>>     platform,  For now we want to be really conservative so we are avoidng
>>>>     the change on ILP32 and in the alternative case we only double it since tha
>>>> t
>>>>     seems to work well enough for recent Code Aster.
>>>>     
>>>>     I was planning to bump the _FreeBSD_version but it was bumped recently
>>>>     (r355798) so we can reuse the 1300068 value for this change.
>>> This doesn't seem right. Each bump should be for a distinct change and
>>> documented as such.
>> TBH, it is just not worth it: this change will currently benefit only
>> one port (french/aster) and the update won't be committed until after
>> the MFC is done.
> An MFC is a quite long-term solution.  If merged to 11 and 12 then any
> workarounds can't be removed until 11.3 and 12.1 are EOL since we'll be
> building packages there until that point.

Yes. I am planning to MFC only to 12-stable as 11-stable may not be 
worth bothering.

Pedro.

> -- Brooks