Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:41:19 +0200 | From | Manfred Spraul <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ipc,shm: increase default size for shmmax |
| |
On 04/17/2014 12:41 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Andrew Morton > <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 20:05:34 +0200 Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Andrew, >>> >>> On 04/02/2014 12:08 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: >>>> Well, I'm assuming 64GB==infinity. It *was* infinity in the RHEL5 >>>> timeframe, but infinity has since become larger so pickanumber. >>> I think infinity is the right solution: >>> The only common case where infinity is wrong would be Android - and >>> Android disables sysv shm entirely. >>> >>> There are two patches: >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=139730332306185&q=raw >>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=139727299800644&q=raw >>> >>> Could you apply one of them? >>> I wrote the first one, thus I'm biased which one is better. >> I like your patch because applying it might encourage you to send more >> kernel patches - I miss the old days ;) >> >> But I do worry about disrupting existing systems so I like Davidlohr's >> idea of making the change a no-op for people who are currently >> explicitly setting shmmax and shmall. > Agreed. It's hard to imagine situations where people might care > nowadays, but there's no limits to people's insane inventiveness. Some > people really might want to set an upper limit. I don't understand that: neither patch has any impact after an explicit sysctl that overwrites shmmax.
>> In an ideal world, system administrators would review this change, > And in the ideal world, patches such as this would CC > linux-api@vger.kernel.org, as described in > Documentation/SubmitChecklist, so that users who care about getting > advance warning on API changes could be alerted and might even review > and comment... Good point. Davidlohr: Your patch has an impact on shmctl(,IPC_INFO,). Could you add that for v3?
I'll try to make a v2 (with your update to the uapi header file) tomorrow.
-- Manfred
| |