From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m1M8gQd1002301 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:42:26 -0500 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m1M8gQYW1080546 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:42:26 -0500 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m1M8gPKg030279 for ; Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:42:25 -0500 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: <47BE6AD0.6070309@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> <1203601178.4604.18.camel@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com> <47BE6AD0.6070309@bull.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:11:26 +0530 Message-Id: <1203669686.4567.0.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: On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 07:25 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote: > Subrata Modak wrote: > >>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 > > > > In attachment, you'll find a patch to apply on top of the patches I sent > you on Tuesday. Nadia, Thanks a ton for that. The same has been merged. Regards-- Subrata > > 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