[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47BD7648.5010309@bull.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:02:00 +0100
From: Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
To: Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>
Cc: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>, 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
Nadia Derbey wrote:
> 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).
>
Forgot the patch, sorry for that (thx Andrew).
Regards,
Nadia
View attachment "ipc_ltp_full_20080131.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (40864 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists