netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Increase snd/rcv buffers in pppoe

To: "YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@" <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase snd/rcv buffers in pppoe
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Date: 23 Feb 2004 12:16:59 +0100
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:16:59 +0100
Cc: ak@xxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040223.200101.39143636.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
References: <20040222234750.GA78924@colin2.muc.de> <20040222232601.481b8c57.davem@redhat.com> <20040223105359.GA91938@colin2.muc.de> <20040223.200101.39143636.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 08:01:01PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$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>