[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47BD705A.9020309@bull.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:36:42 +0100
From: Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
To: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
Cc: subrata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
ltp-list@...ts.sourceforge.net,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, cmm@...ibm.com,
y-goto@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/8] Scaling msgmni to the amount of lowmem
Matt Helsley wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:16 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>+#define MAX_MSGQUEUES 16 /* MSGMNI as defined in linux/msg.h */
>>+
>
>
> It's not quite the maximum anymore, is it? More like the minumum
> maximum ;). A better name might better document what the test is
> actually trying to do.
>
> One question I have is whether the unpatched test is still valuable.
> Based on my limited knowledge of the test I suspect it's still a correct
> test of message queues. If so, perhaps renaming the old test (so it's
> not confused with a performance regression) and adding your patched
> version is best?
>
So, here's the new patch based on Matt's points.
Subrata, it has to be applied on top of the original ltp-full-20080131.
Please tell me if you'd prefer one based on the merged version you've
got (i.e. with my Tuesday patch applied).
Regards,
Nadia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists