[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140331161308.6510381345cb9a1b419d5ec0@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:13:08 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
Cc: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>, aswin@...com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc,shm: increase default size for shmmax
On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 15:59:33 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:
> >
> > - Shouldn't there be a way to alter this namespace's shm_ctlmax?
>
> Unfortunately this would also add the complexity I previously mentioned.
But if the current namespace's shm_ctlmax is too small, you're screwed.
Have to shut down the namespace all the way back to init_ns and start
again.
> > - What happens if we just nuke the limit altogether and fall back to
> > the next check, which presumably is the rlimit bounds?
>
> afaik we only have rlimit for msgqueues. But in any case, while I like
> that simplicity, it's too late. Too many workloads (specially DBs) rely
> heavily on shmmax. Removing it and relying on something else would thus
> cause a lot of things to break.
It would permit larger shm segments - how could that break things? It
would make most or all of these issues go away?
First principles: why does this thing exist? What problem was SHMMAX
created to solve? It doesn't appear to be part of posix:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/shmget.html
[ENOMEM]
A shared memory identifier and associated shared memory segment
shall be created, but the amount of available physical memory is
not sufficient to fill the request.
--
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