[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090129084210.GA2704@brong.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:42:10 +1100
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@...tmail.fm>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
Bron Gondwana <brong@...tmail.fm>
Subject: Re: [patch] drop epoll max_user_instances and rely only on
max_user_watches
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 08:56:07PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> Linus suggested to put limits where the money is, and max_user_watches
> already does that w/out the need of max_user_instances. That has the
> advantage to mitigate the potential DoS while allowing pretty generous
> default behavior.
> Allowing top 4% of low memory (per user) to be allocated in epoll
> watches, we have:
>
> LOMEM MAX_WATCHES (per user)
> 512MB ~178000
> 1GB ~356000
> 2GB ~712000
>
> A box with 512MB of lomem, will meet some challenge in hitting 180K
> watches, socket buffers math teaches us.
> No more max_user_instances limits then.
Excellent. Glad to see :) Saves me from keeping on working on my "only
account epoll within epoll for max_user_instances" patch, which would
have just been needless complexity (though cheap - is_file_epoll looks
pretty easy to check for both descriptors) - and I hadn't even compiled
and tested it yet.
Thanks Davide - this will keep our mxes humming along happily.
Bron.
--
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