From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <200508042249.j74Mndg18582@unix-os.sc.intel.com> From: "Chen, Kenneth W" Subject: RE: Getting rid of SHMMAX/SHMALL ? Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:49:37 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <20050804132338.GT8266@wotan.suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: 'Andi Kleen' , Hugh Dickins Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Anton Blanchard , cr@sap.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Andi Kleen wrote on Thursday, August 04, 2005 6:24 AM > I think we should just get rid of the per process limit and keep > the global limit, but make it auto tuning based on available memory. > That is still not very nice because that would likely keep it < available > memory/2, but I suspect databases usually want more than that. So > I would even make it bigger than tmpfs for reasonably big machines. > Let's say > > if (main memory >= 1GB) > maxmem = main memory - main memory/8 This might be too low on large system. We usually stress shm pretty hard for db application and usually use more than 87% of total memory in just one shm segment. So I prefer either no limit or a tunable. - Ken -- 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