Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:10:41 -0800 (PST) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: [patch 016/104] epoll: introduce resource usage limits |
| |
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 07:46:18PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 04:35:19PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > > Can you resubmit all 4 patches, and cc: the epoll author, Davide? He's > > > > the one that needs to accept these changes. > > > > > > It's three now (two of them deserved to merged) and re-ordered so the > > > first two are trivial and the complex bits are easily skipped if you > > > don't want them. > > > > > > Just looking for Davide's email address. Found it :) I'll follow up > > > this message with the patches. I'm not going to CC everyone else again > > > - but I'll CC LKML so you can follow it there if you want. > > > > I already gave you my opinion on such code. There is no need for it. If > > your servers are loaded, in the same way you bump NFILES (and likely > > even other default configs), you bump up max_user_instances: > > How can you tell if it's heavily loaded if you can't tell what the > current usage is? Just wait until you hit the limit?
In my servers, I know if they are going to be loaded, and I bump NFILES (and a few other things) to the correct place. Since many of those limits do not actually pre-allocate any resource, I don't need to wait and monitor the values, before taking proper action. Sorry, the whole patch set is a big NACK for many reasons. We'd have happily avoided those limits altogether, but 100-160MB of kernel memory able to be pinned by unprivileged users is easily a DoS on multiuser systems.
- Davide
| |