lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/8] Scaling msgmni to the amount of lowmem
    From
    Date

    On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 08:17 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
    > Quoting Nadia Derbey (Nadia.Derbey@bull.net):
    > > Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
    > >> Quoting Luck, Tony (tony.luck@intel.com):
    > >>>> Well, this printk had been suggested by somebody (sorry I don't remember
    > >>>> who) when I first submitted the patch. Actually I think it might be
    > >>>> useful for a sysadmin to be aware of a change in the msgmni value: we
    > >>>> have the message not only at boot time, but also each time msgmni is
    > >>>> recomputed because of a change in the amount of memory.
    > >>>
    > >>> If the message is directed at the system administrator, then it would
    > >>> be nice if there were some more meaningful way to show the namespace
    > >>> that is affected than just printing the hex address of the kernel
    > >>> structure.
    > >>>
    > >>> As the sysadmin for my test systems, printing the hex address is mildly
    > >>> annoying ... I now have to add a new case to my scripts that look at
    > >>> dmesg output for unusual activity.
    > >>>
    > >>> Is there some better "name for a namespace" than the address? Perhaps
    > >>> the process id of the process that instantiated the namespace???
    > >> I agree with Tony here. Aside from the nuisance it is to see that
    > >> message on console every time I unshare a namespace, a printk doesn't
    > >> seem like the right way to output the info.
    > >
    > > But you agree that this is happening only because you're doing tests
    > > related to namespaces, right?
    >
    > Yup :)
    >
    > > I don't think that in a "standard" configuration this will happen very
    > > frequently, but may be I'm wrong.
    > >
    > >> At most I'd say an audit
    > >> message.
    >
    > > That's a good idea. Thanks, Serge. I'll do that.

    I'm not familiar with kernel policies regarding audit messages. Are
    audit messages treated anything like kernel interfaces when it comes to
    removing/changing them?

    Cheers,
    -Matt Helsley



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-05-07 20:15    [W:0.023 / U:95.880 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site