From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932286AbXBNOIW (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:08:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751397AbXBNOIV (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:08:21 -0500 Received: from [212.33.164.166] ([212.33.164.166]:33101 "EHLO raad.intranet" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751325AbXBNOIV (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:08:21 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 859 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 09:08:19 EST From: Al Boldi To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/6] automatic tuning applied to some kernel components Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:56:43 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200702141656.43301.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ebiederm wrote: > At a quick glance max_threads and max_files appear even more to be > DOS limits and not tunables and even less applicable to needing any > tuning at all. My gut feel is at worst these values may need a little > better boot time defaults but otherwise they the should be good. Autotuning max_threads and max_files by using some sort of rate-limiter could possibly be more useful than any kind of fixed default. Thanks! -- Al