Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/8] Scaling msgmni to the amount of lowmem

From: Subrata Modak <subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@bull.net>
Cc: Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	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
Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/8] Scaling msgmni to the amount of lowmem
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:09:38 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1203601178.4604.18.camel@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47BD7648.5010309@bull.net>

> Nadia Derbey wrote:
> > Matt Helsley wrote:
> > 
> >> On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 18:16 +0100, Nadia Derbey wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> +#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
> 