[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18529.58173.415727.712894@frecb006361.adech.frec.bull.fr>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:18:37 +0200
From: Solofo.Ramangalahy@...l.net
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Cc: Solofo.Ramangalahy@...l.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>,
Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>,
Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC -mm 0/6] sysv ipc: scale msgmnb with the number of cpus
Manfred Spraul writes:
> > Humm... now this make me think that you did not change the MSGMNB
> > value when you changed MSGMNI and MSGMAX.
> > Maybe that was on purpose?
> >
> >
> I was afraid that it might break user space applications that queue a
> few kb of messages.
Ok, the choice of a maximum value of 65536 which is already is use for
several months/years was made partly for the same concern.
Beside, as the values are not enforced, we should be relatively safe.
Searching the archives, I also found usage of a value "around a MB".
> That's also the reason for
> > if (msgsz + msq->q_cbytes <= msq->q_qbytes &&
> > 1 + msq->q_qnum <= msq->q_qbytes) {
> > break;
> > }
> It's possible to send 0-byte messages even if the message queue is full
> [except that you can't send more than MSGMNB messages].
Thanks for this information. I should add that I checked that no
regression was introduced with ltp-full-20080531, but I did not look
more closely (e.g. coverage of this part of the code).
--
solofo
--
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