Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932880AbYBUNj7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:39:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752262AbYBUNjv (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:39:51 -0500 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:52227 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751842AbYBUNju (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:39:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/8] Scaling msgmni to the amount of lowmem From: Subrata Modak Reply-To: subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com 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 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 Organization: IBM Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:09:38 +0530 Message-Id: <1203601178.4604.18.camel@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.0 (2.8.0-33.el5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1490 Lines: 48 > 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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/