From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1LDdY1G018530 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:39:34 -0500 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m1LDdS2g210298 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:39:33 -0700 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m1LDdS6I026929 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 06:39:28 -0700 Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/8] Scaling msgmni to the amount of lowmem From: Subrata Modak Reply-To: subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <47BD7648.5010309@bull.net> References: <20080211141646.948191000@bull.net> <20080211141813.354484000@bull.net> <20080215215916.8566d337.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <47B94D8C.8040605@bull.net> <47B9835A.3060507@bull.net> <1203411055.4612.5.camel@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com> <47BB0EDC.5000002@bull.net> <1203459418.7408.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47BD705A.9020309@bull.net> <47BD7648.5010309@bull.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:09:38 +0530 Message-Id: <1203601178.4604.18.camel@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nadia Derbey Cc: Matt Helsley , Andrew Morton , ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cmm@us.ibm.com, y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com List-ID: > Nadia Derbey wrote: > > Matt Helsley wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:16 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> +#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). Nadia, I would prefer Patch on the top of the already merged version (on top of latest CVS snapshot as of today). Anyways, thanks for all these effort :-) --Subrata > > > > Forgot the patch, sorry for that (thx Andrew). > > Regards, > Nadia > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org