Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757598AbZGFJDu (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2009 05:03:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754171AbZGFJDn (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2009 05:03:43 -0400 Received: from gw1.cosmosbay.com ([212.99.114.194]:33263 "EHLO gw1.cosmosbay.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753703AbZGFJDm (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2009 05:03:42 -0400 Message-ID: <4A51BD2C.7010105@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:00:28 +0200 From: Eric Dumazet User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linda Walsh CC: LKML Subject: Re: pipe(2), read/write, maximums and behavior. References: <4A51B127.8080807@tlinx.org> In-Reply-To: <4A51B127.8080807@tlinx.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (gw1.cosmosbay.com [0.0.0.0]); Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:00:28 +0200 (CEST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2570 Lines: 60 Linda Walsh a ?crit : > I've seen a few shells claim to limit pipe sizes to 8 512Byte buffers. > Don't know where they get this value or how they think it applies, but > it certainly doesn't seem to apply in linux. However, I'm not > sure what limits do apply compared to available memory. > I suppose, starting off, one might look at at a maximum of > (Physical+Swap-resident-non-swappable mem)/2 as a top limit. > > A test machine I have has 8GB physical memory with a bit over 4GB > of swap space making for about 12GB of memory. > > If total memory was to go toward my proglet that splits into a master > writer and slave pipe reader, they'd have to split memory to have > matching buffer read/write sizes. I'd "expect", (I think) at least > a 2GB write/read to work, and possibly a 4GB write/read to work > with alot of swap activity -- that's assuming there are no other > restraints in dividing 12GB of address space. > > As it turns out -- the program dies at 2GB (the 1GB write/read works) > but when the program tries a 2GB write & read it refuses the full write > and the child gets less than 2GB. > > The master gets back that it wrote 2097148KB, though it tried to > write 2097152KB (and the child receives the 2GB-4K buffer upon read). > > This is on a x86_64 machine, and unsigned long values are 8-bytes > wide and being used with the read and write calls for lengths. > > Shouldn't a 2GB read/write work? At most, together the master > and slave would have only used 4GB for each to have a 2GB buffer. > > How would one determine the maximum size for 1 huge read or write > through the pipe (from the pipe system call)? > > On 2GHz multi-core machines, I get about 512MB/s throughput. > > I attached the source file so anyone can see my methodology. > > you have to include "-lrt" on the gcc command line as it uses > clock_gettime to estimate the time for the write call (the read > call always comes back with values too small to be reasonable, so > I don't bother printing them. > > > read()/write() system calls use generic vfs_read()/vfs_write() calls, that in turn use rw_verify_area() which limits 'count' of bytes to MAX_RW_COUNT #define MAX_RW_COUNT (INT_MAX & PAGE_CACHE_MASK) So yes, this currently limits to 2GB - (PAGE_SIZE) (PAGE_SIZE=4KB on i386), even on x86_64 kernels. -- 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/