On 4/2/24 11:59 AM, Robin Candau wrote:

On 4/2/24 9:14 AM, Robin Candau wrote:

...

...

On April 1, 2024 12:09:47 PM UTC, Robin Candau wrote:

    On 3/25/24 9:10 AM, Robin Candau wrote:

        Hi everyone,

        I'm writing this mail as proposal to increase the default         `vm.max_map_count` value in Arch Linux.

    It's been a week since this proposal thread [1] was made. For now it     only received a few but all positives feedback (both from staff     members and users in a related thread on arch-general [2]).

    Do we have any more thoughts anyone wants to share?

    Also, if we are to implement this change, anyone has an opinion     about which package should provide it? So far, the following     packages have been mentioned:     - systemd (as Fedora did)     - procps-ng (as Ubuntu did)     - filesystem

    Given that the proposal goes through, I'll create the MR to the     chosen package accordingly. Also, despite this change being     impact-free (as far as we can tell), I think a related news item to     inform users about this change would be a great idea (I'll write     that as well).

    Please, share your opinion about the change itself or the best     package to provide it if you have any :)

    [1] https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.or... https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.or...     [2] https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-general@lists.archlinux.org/t... https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-general@lists.archlinux.org/t...

Another suggestion I got off-list is to ship that change with the kernel. While I get why it would make sense, we maintain and support multiple kernel packages (6 currently). Making this change __the default__ (which is the aim of this proposal) will imply to ship it in every kernel packages we currently maintain on Arch side (and in every kernel packages we will potentially add in the future).

I'm personally more in favor of shipping this change in one central place to avoid the additional maintenance eventually implied by having it in multiple places at once.

Shipping it in nprocps-ng felt reasonable to me (as it's the package providing `sysctl`) but if shipping such a "downstream" change to the nprocps-ng package is a concern regarding our "simplicity" principle [1], then I think the filesystem package would be the right place instead.

[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_Linux#Simplicity

As someone reminded me off-list, the filesystem package already ships some Arch specific kernel configs (under /usr/lib/sysctl.d/10-arch.conf) [1]. Adding the change to that file via the filesystem package then feels like the obvious choice. With no expressed concern/objection by next Sunday, I'll make the MR to the filesystem package and start drafting a news. [1] https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/filesystem/-/blob/... -- Regards, Robin Candau / Antiz