Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 01:02:48 +0100 (CET) From: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> To: pedophile@FLUFFY.GETS.AN.ANALPROBE.DK Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Andrey Novikov <novikov@webclub.ru>, Brian Dean <brdean@unx.sas.com> Subject: Re: Tuning up semaphores in kernel Message-ID: <200002210002.BAA03865@saturn.kn-bremen.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1000220130941.70779A-100000@fLuFFy.iNt.tElE.dK> References: <fa.iogc1pv.1bh4l8c@ifi.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <Pine.BSF.3.96.1000220130941.70779A-100000@fLuFFy.iNt.tElE.dK> you write: >On Sun, 13 Feb 19100, Andrey Novikov wrote: > >> > You probably want to increase either SEMMNI or SEMMNS. >> >> I've noticed that but why are they so "round"? Is there any corelation >> between all these numbers? I don't want to break my kernel by guessing. >> >> > > options SEMMAP=31 >> > > options SEMMNI=11 >> > > options SEMMNS=61 >> > > options SEMMNU=31 >> > > options SEMMSL=61 >> > > options SEMOPM=101 >> > > options SEMUME=11 > >I ran into this problem when I was trying to compile and use a useful >Linux audio application and I got the ENOSPC error. >... >Now, I'd like to contribute the hacking and bugfixing I've done on >the linux bplay program to someone for review and possible inclusion >as a port, but if it doesn't work with the supplied kernel and generic >config, I'm not sure what the correct action for me to take would be. hmm bplay, this is probably the original source that was used with some changes for gramofile, for which i already just submitted a port... (ports/16819, there its called play_gramo.) i simply patched it to use FreeBSD's default number. (If its not committed yet try the query-pr.cgi, or searching for gramofile in *freebsd.ports* on deja.com should also turn it up.) > >Is there a good reason not to tweak the GENERIC/LINT FreeBSD kernel >config SEM* definitions upwards to something that will allow the bplay >to work out-of-the-box^H^H^Hport? so its not necessary for bplay, the only justification for this i could think of would be to be able to run linux binaries without recompiling... > >Or should there just be a huge <BLINK>warning</BLINK> that appears >when building bplay advising that certain kernel parameters may need >tuning before the program has a chance of working, during the >compilation/installation, or just somewhere in the ports files where >it can be ignored? > > >Otherwise, I can't see that bplay would be particularly useful as a >port, but rather as additional software the user could optionally >choose to hunt down and install... > no even if a port won't work with the default kernel for some reason its still useful as a port, tho it probably should then have a pkg/MESSAGE telling the admin what he needs to put into the kernel. HTH, -- Juergen Lock <nox.foo@jelal.kn-bremen.de> (remove dot foo from address to reply) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200002210002.BAA03865>