[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d8d698ae0805290846w7cd2b14j99db2e1e2a9ec7ed@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 12:46:56 -0300
From: "Fausto Richetti Blanco" <fausto.blanco@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: miquels@...tron.nl, riel@...hat.com, jengelh@...ozas.de,
fausto.blanco@...il.com
Subject: Re: Pipe buffers' limit of 16 * 4K
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 2008-05-29 15:19, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>>On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 10:00 -0300, Fausto Richetti Blanco wrote:
>>
>>Why not use a socketpair() instead of a pipe(). You can adjust the size
>>with setsockopt SO_SNDBUF/SO_RCVBUF (see man socket(7))
>
> Nah, if there's lots of POST requests, and a large buffer for
> each of it, you may end up running into allocation failures.
Well, I think it's an alternative.. A good one, indeed :)
However, I implemented it and run into the limit of /proc/sys/net/core/wmem_max
Do you guys think it's a big impact to change this to a higher value ?
It's meant to only affect the MAX window size, right ? Does it have
any other way of changing this limit (by process or by user, for
exemple) ?
The strange thing here is that setsockopt doesn't fail if I change the
size of the buffer to anything higher than
/proc/sys/net/core/wmem_max. It doesn't work either :)
The implementation with socketpair, adjusting
/proc/sys/net/core/wmem_max, seems good to me. However, I still think
dynamic buffers for pipes a good idea.
--
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