Re: [PATCH 1/8] Scaling msgmni to the amount of lowmem

[Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>]

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