netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: ak@xxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase snd/rcv buffers in pppoe
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:38:43 +0900 (JST)
Cc: davem@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, mostrows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040223111659.GB10681@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: USAGI Project
References: <20040223105359.GA91938@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040223.200101.39143636.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040223111659.GB10681@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
In article <20040223111659.GB10681@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at 23 Feb 2004 12:16:59 
+0100,Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:16:59 +0100), Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> says:

> 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.

But, others use (2^n - 1) and
people will be confused if there are both 131071 and 131072.

--yoshfuji

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>