[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1010020701320.1564@davide-laptop>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 07:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
cc: Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: max_user_watches overflows on 16TB system.
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Robin Holt wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Following a boot of a 16TB system, we noticed that the max_user_watches
> >> sysctl was negative. Is there any downside to converting that to a
> >> static long and handling the fallout from the change? I believe that
> >> fallout includes changing the definition of epoll_watches over to an
> >> atomic_long_t as well.
> >>
> >> Alternatively should we just limit max_user_watches to INT_MAX?
> >
> > 2B watches looks an acceptable limit to me, at least for now.
> > Nobody complained about not having enough of them so far.
>
> Which suggests that we need to force the boot time calculation to not
> exceed 2B.
>
> From the sysctl interface perspective now that all of it is exported as
> ascii strings I don't see a problem there.
Thinking with actual code at hands, you're right. It just makes more
sense the 'long' variable conversion, even though MAX_INT watches are a
huge number today.
Robin, sorry for the confusion. Can you post the 'long' conversion patch?
- Davide
--
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