lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f55850a70611060149u5612b7c1w8b94696c20b5f80f@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:49:55 +0800
From:	"Zhao Xiaoming" <xiaoming.nj@...il.com>
To:	"Eric Dumazet" <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Linux Netdev List" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ZONE_NORMAL memory exhausted by 4000 TCP sockets

2006/11/6, Zhao Xiaoming <xiaoming.nj@...il.com>:
> 2006/11/6, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>:
> > On Monday 06 November 2006 09:59, Zhao Xiaoming wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you again for your help. To have more detailed statistic data, I
> > > did another round of test and gathered some data.  I give the overall
> > > description here and detailed /proc/net/sockstat, /proc/meminfo,
> > > /proc/slabinfo and /proc/buddyinfo follows.
> > > =====================================================
> > >                            slab mem cost        tcp mem pages       lowmem
> > > free with traffic:             254668KB                 34693
> > >       38772KB
> > > without traffic:       104080KB                           1
> > >        702652KB
> > > =====================================================
> >
> > Thank you for detailed infos.
> >
> > It appears you have an extensive use of threads (about 10000), since :
> >
> > > task_struct        10095  10095   1360    3    1 : tunables   24   12
> > >   8 : slabdata   3365   3365      0
> >
> > Each thread has a kernel stack, 8KB (ie 2 pages, order-1 allocation), plus a
> > user vma
> >
> > > vm_area_struct     21346  21504     92   42    1 : tunables  120   60
> > >   8 : slabdata    512    512      0
> >
> > Most likely you dont need that much threads. A program with fewer threads will
> > perform better and use less ram.
> >
> >
> Thanks for the comments. I known the threads may cost many memory.
> However, I already excluded them from the statistics. The 'after test'
> info was gotten while the 10000 threads running but no traffics
> relayed. You may look at the meminfo of 'after test', there is still
> 104080 kB slab memory which should already included the thread kernel
> memory cost (8K*10000=80MB). I know 10000 threads are not necessary
> and just use the simple logic to do some test.
>
and I just tried 2500 threads. the results are the same.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ