[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140401121920.50d1dd96c2145acc81561b82@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:19:20 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>, aswin@...com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
"Gotou, Yasunori" <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>,
chenhanxiao <chenhanxiao@...fujitsu.com>,
Gao feng <gaofeng@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc,shm: increase default size for shmmax
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 15:29:05 +0900 Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > So their system will act as if they had set SHMMAX=enormous. What
> > problems could that cause?
> >
> >
> > Look. The 32M thing is causing problems. Arbitrarily increasing the
> > arbitrary 32M to an arbitrary 128M won't fix anything - we still have
> > the problem. Think bigger, please: how can we make this problem go
> > away for ever?
> >
>
> Our middleware engineers has been complaining about this sysctl limit.
> System administrator need to calculate required sysctl value by making sum
> of all planned middlewares, and middleware provider needs to write "please
> calculate systcl param by....." in their installation manuals.
Why aren't people just setting the sysctl to a petabyte? What problems
would that lead to?
--
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