From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH] kanoj-mm21-2.3.23 alow larger sizes to shmget() References: <199911022156.NAA15762@google.engr.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Christoph Rohland Date: 02 Nov 1999 23:09:02 +0100 In-Reply-To: kanoj@google.engr.sgi.com's message of "Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:56:35 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Kanoj Sarcar Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: kanoj@google.engr.sgi.com (Kanoj Sarcar) writes: > > > The clean up code is similar to what I posted at > > > > > > http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/lists/linux-mm/1999-06/msg00071.html > > > > > > previously. Although, I would point out that SHMMAX probably belongs > > > to the asm/* header file (specially, with the size_t size parameter > > > to shmget()). > > > > Why should we make it arch dependend if we can tune it at runtime? > > > > Probably 95% of people who run Linux have no idea what > /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax is, and end up recompiling the kernel with a > bumped up SHMMAX, if they find SHMMAX too low for their app. On > sparc64/alpha and yet to come mips64/ia64, SHMMAX can be pretty > huge, compared to the ia32 0x2000000. Think out of the box, and you > will see that keeping SHMMAX asm dependent will work better for most > people ... So we should include a comment in shm.h to do it via sysctl. For bigger machines you have many parameters to tune. So the people have to get used to sysctl and we will need a frontend to tune them persistently. At least that's what I would do. In general I think it is good to keep the arch dependend part as small as possible. But I have no real objection for doing it the other way besides this. Christoph -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/