Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1495993
| From | Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: aio: questions with ioctx_alloc() and large num_possible_cpus() |
| Date | 2016-10-05 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <soYXo-4WW-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <soGQN-xH-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <soYE1-4tz-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <soYE1-4tz-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:58:12PM -0300, Mauricio Faria de Oliveira wrote: > Hi Benjamin, > > On 10/05/2016 02:41 PM, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > >I'd suggest increasing the default limit by changing how it is calculated. > >The current number came about 13 years ago when machines had orders of > >magnitude less RAM than they do today. > > Thanks for the suggestion. > > Does the default also have implications other than memory usage? > For example, concurrency/performance of as much aio contexts running, > or if userspace could try to exploit some point with a larger number? Anything's possible when a local user can run code. It's the same problem as determining how much memory can be mlock()ed, or how much i/o a process should be allowed to do. Nothing prevents an app from doing a huge amount of readahed() calls to make the system prefetch gigabytes of data. That said, local users tend not to DoS themselves. > Wondering about it because it can be set based on num_possible_cpus(), > but that might be really large on high-end systems. Today's high end systems are tomorrow's desktops... It probably makes sense to implement per-user limits rather than the current global limit, and maybe even convert them to an rlimit to better fit in with the available frameworks for managing these things. -ben > Regards, > > -- > Mauricio Faria de Oliveira > IBM Linux Technology Center -- "Thought is the essence of where you are now."
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
aio: questions with ioctx_alloc() and large num_possible_cpus() Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mauricfo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-10-05 01:00 +0200
Re: aio: questions with ioctx_alloc() and large num_possible_cpus() Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 08:40 +0200
Re: aio: questions with ioctx_alloc() and large num_possible_cpus() Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mauricfo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-10-05 19:30 +0200
Re: aio: questions with ioctx_alloc() and large num_possible_cpus() Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mauricfo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-10-05 20:00 +0200
Re: aio: questions with ioctx_alloc() and large num_possible_cpus() Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org> - 2016-10-05 20:20 +0200
Re: aio: questions with ioctx_alloc() and large num_possible_cpus() Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mauricfo@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-10-05 21:30 +0200
Re: aio: questions with ioctx_alloc() and large num_possible_cpus() Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org> - 2016-10-05 20:10 +0200
csiph-web