From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262095AbTE2KFd (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2003 06:05:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262098AbTE2KFd (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2003 06:05:33 -0400 Received: from wiprom2mx1.wipro.com ([203.197.164.41]:32499 "EHLO wiprom2mx1.wipro.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262095AbTE2KFc (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2003 06:05:32 -0400 Message-ID: <3ED5DE49.5CA79049@wipro.com> Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 15:47:45 +0530 From: Arvind Kandhare X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Manfred Spraul CC: linux-kernel , "indou.takao" , rml , Dave Jones , roystgnr@owlnet.rice.edu, garagan@borg.cs.dal.ca, arvind.kan@wipro.com Subject: Re: Changing SEMVMX to a tunable parameter References: <3ED4C6B6.7050806@wipro.com> <3ED4E0BB.2080603@colorfullife.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 May 2003 10:18:35.0606 (UTC) FILETIME=[A9EE4760:01C325CB] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Manfred Spraul wrote: > _If_ there are no signed/unsigned problems and if Oracle wants 64K, then > I would increase SEMVMX to 64K, without making it tunable. Dito for SEMAEM. > 1. Most of the IPC parameters (e.g. msgmni, msgmax, msgmnb , shmmni, shmmax) are tunables. (Please refer : http://web.gnu.walfield.org/mail-archive/linux-kernel-digest/1999-November/0020.html) Was there any specific reason why semvmx was not made a tunable with the above set?? 2. By having semvmx as tunable, administrator gets more flexibility in controlling the resource usage on the system: a. By increasing this, it is possible to allow more processes to use the system resources controlled by a semaphore concurrently. b. By decreasing this, the number of processes using the system resources controlled by a semaphore concurrently can be limited. Tuning this value may be desirable so that system is run at optimum performance. We are working towards avoiding kernel re-build for any desired value of semvmx. This will be most desirable in enterprise systems. Because of problems with dynamic tuning (ref first mail on the subject), static tuning (boot time) is proposed. Please let us know your comments. thanks and regards, Arvind