[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 13:09:57 +0800
From: 严海双 <yanhaishuang@...s.chinamobile.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: Namespaceify tcp_max_orphans knob
> On 2017年9月9日, at 下午12:35, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:25 PM, 严海双 <yanhaishuang@...s.chinamobile.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 2017年9月9日, at 上午6:13, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Haishuang Yan
>>> <yanhaishuang@...s.chinamobile.com> wrote:
>>>> Different namespace application might require different maximal number
>>>> of TCP sockets independently of the host.
>>>
>>> So after your patch we could have N * net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans
>>> in a whole system, right? This just makes OOM easier to trigger.
>>>
>>
>> From my understanding, before the patch, we had N * net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans,
>> and after the patch, we could have ns1.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans + ns2.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans
>> + ns3.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans, is that right? Thanks for your reviewing.
>
> Nope, by N I mean the number of containers. Before your patch, the limit
> is global, after your patch it is per container.
>
Yeah, for example, if there is N containers, before the patch, I mean the limit is:
N * net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans
After the patch, the limit is:
ns1. net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans + ns2. net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans + …
Powered by blists - more mailing lists