[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290611906.3464.66.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:18:26 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eugene Teo <eugene@...hat.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] af_unix: limit unix_tot_inflight
Le mercredi 24 novembre 2010 à 15:44 +0100, Andi Kleen a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> writes:
> >
> > diff --git a/net/unix/garbage.c b/net/unix/garbage.c
> > index c8df6fd..40df93d 100644
> > --- a/net/unix/garbage.c
> > +++ b/net/unix/garbage.c
> > @@ -259,9 +259,16 @@ static void inc_inflight_move_tail(struct unix_sock *u)
> > }
> >
> > static bool gc_in_progress = false;
> > +#define UNIX_INFLIGHT_TRIGGER_GC 16000
>
> It would be better to define this as a percentage of
> lowmem.
>
I knew somebody would suggest this ;)
Hmm, why bother ?
Do you think 16000 is too big ? Too small ?
1) What would be the percentage of memory ? 1%, 0.001 % ?
On a 16TB machine, a percentage will still give huge latencies to the
poor guy that hit the unix_gc().
With 16000, the max latency I had was 11.5 ms (on an Intel E5540
@2.53GHz), instead of more than 2000 ms
I guess it would make more sense to limit to the size of cpu cache
anyway.
2) We currently allocate 4096 bytes (on x86_64) to store one file
pointer, or 2048 bytes on x86_32.
But we can store in it up to 255 files.
I posted a patch to shrink this to 32 or 16 bytes. Should we then
change the heuristic ?
3) Really who needs more than 16000 inflight unix files ?
(inflight unix files means : af_unix file descriptors that were sent
(sendfd()) through af_unix, not yet garbage collected.).
4) If we autotune a limit at boot time as a lowmem percentage, some guys
then want a /proc/sys/net/core/max_unix_inflight sysctl , just for
completeness. One extra sysctl...
I cant see valid uses but programs designed to stress our stack.
--
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