linux-kernel - Re: nfsd deadlock, 2.6.36-rc3

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: <20100901210555.GB10507@fieldses.org>
Date:	Wed, 1 Sep 2010 17:05:55 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Trond.Myklebust@...app.com
Subject: Re: nfsd deadlock, 2.6.36-rc3

On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 06:55:51AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 12:54:01 -0400
> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org> wrote:
> > For that reason we just don't support loopback mounts--they're OK for
> > light testing, but it would be difficult to make them completely robust
> > under load.
> 
> I wonder if we could use 'containers' to partition available memory between
> 'nfsd threads' and 'everything else'??  Probably not worth the effort.

cgroups, I don't know, I guess the essential thing would be to make sure
that nfsd has the resources it needs to make forward progress, however
slowly--even if it means, for example, only enough to keep a single
thread processing requests.

--b.
--
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/