linux-kernel - files/process scaling problem? (was: [PATCH] Export shmem_file_setup and shmem

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: <200808040135.32563.ioe-lkml@rameria.de>
Date:	Mon, 4 Aug 2008 01:35:31 +0200
From:	Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...eria.de>
To:	Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>
Cc:	John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: files/process scaling problem? (was: [PATCH] Export shmem_file_setup and shmem_getpage for DRM-GEM)

Hi Keith,

On Sunday 03 August 2008, Keith Packard wrote:
> > Just seeing your statement that you wanted to add ioctls made me
> > shudder and try to visuallize a better way to do this.  
> 
> I could use fds if the kernel supported applications needing many
> thousand of them, and also some way to keep these FDs from polluting the
> fd space used by select(2) (yeah, I know, don't use select).

You may just have identified a scaling problem here. 
I see no difference to many thousand TCP/IP connections in your description.

What actions on many thousand fds are supported poorly or not at all?
Are you only concerned about the memory requirements?

Please elaborate or point me to a place where you did already :-)


Best Regards

Ingo Oeser
--
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/