From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263017AbTI2W3i (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:29:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263039AbTI2W3i (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:29:38 -0400 Received: from pix-525-pool.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200]:24008 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263017AbTI2W3h (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:29:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:29:32 -0400 From: Pete Zaitcev Message-Id: <200309292229.h8TMTWw32486@devserv.devel.redhat.com> To: Linus Torvalds cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Many groups patch. In-Reply-To: References: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> This version drops the internal groups array (it's so often shared >> that it's not worth it, and the logic becomes a bit neater), and does >> vmalloc fallback in case someone has massive number of groups. > > Why? > The vmalloc space is limited, and the code just gets uglier. Tim was going to write a version that segments groups into smaller arrays. I reckon it was too difficult? > Have you been looking at glibc sources lately, or why do you believe that > we should encourage insane usage? We have some customers who run insane number of groups, with their own patches. This practice is popular in the Beowulf crowd for some reason. I should note this is not very mainstream. -- Pete