| To: | "YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@" <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Increase snd/rcv buffers in pppoe |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | 23 Feb 2004 12:16:59 +0100 |
| Date: | Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:16:59 +0100 |
| Cc: | ak@xxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20040223.200101.39143636.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20040222234750.GA78924@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040222232601.481b8c57.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040223105359.GA91938@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040223.200101.39143636.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 08:01:01PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ wrote: > In article <20040223105359.GA91938@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at 23 Feb 2004 11:53:59 > +0100,Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:53:59 +0100), Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> says: > > > -#define SK_WMEM_MAX 65535 > > -#define SK_RMEM_MAX 65535 > > +#define SK_WMEM_MAX 131072 > > +#define SK_RMEM_MAX 131072 > > 131071? Probably, but it doesn't make any difference; see how the skbuff socket accounting works. Really there isn't really a need to make it power of two (except for mystifying arbitary magic numbers for the users ;-) 130000 or 200000 would do as well. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Increase snd/rcv buffers in pppoe, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Increase snd/rcv buffers in pppoe, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Increase snd/rcv buffers in pppoe, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Increase snd/rcv buffers in pppoe, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |