Re: aio: questions with ioctx_alloc() and large num_possible_cpus()

From	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: aio: questions with ioctx_alloc() and large num_possible_cpus()
Date	2016-10-28 21:10 +0200
Message-ID	<sxkHn-3Tx-7@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> <soYXo-4WW-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org> writes:

> Today's high end systems are tomorrow's desktops...  It probably makes 

Well, to some degree I agree with you.  >100 processor high end systems
have been around for a long time, but we still don't have those on the
desktop.  ;-)

> 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.

I actually wrote a patch to do this back in 2007:
  http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1043934

It used the mlock rlimit.  I ultimately decided to rescind it, since
there were years of experience with the current tunable, and plenty of
documentation on it, too.  We could put aio-max-nr on the deprecated
path, though, if folks want to go that route.  Let me know and I can
investigate resurrecting that patch.  Though I would like input on
whether a new rlimit is desired.

Cheers,
Jeff

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: aio: questions with ioctx_alloc() and large num_possible_cpus() Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> - 2016-10-28 21:10 +0200

csiph-web