Re: [PATCH] ipc,shm: increase default size for shmmax

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:25:32 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 16:13 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 15:59:33 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.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?
> > 
> 
> So sysadmins wouldn't be very happy, per man shmget(2):
> 
> EINVAL A new segment was to be created and size < SHMMIN or size >
> SHMMAX, or no new segment was to be created, a segment with given key
> existed, but size is greater than the size of that segment.

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?

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>