[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49twbw710j.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 14:59:40 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
Cc: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mauricfo@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: aio: questions with ioctx_alloc() and large num_possible_cpus()
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org> writes:
> Today's high end systems are tomorrow's desktops... It probably makes
Well, to some degree I agree with you. >100 processor high end systems
have been around for a long time, but we still don't have those on the
desktop. ;-)
> sense to implement per-user limits rather than the current global limit,
> and maybe even convert them to an rlimit to better fit in with the
> available frameworks for managing these things.
I actually wrote a patch to do this back in 2007:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1043934
It used the mlock rlimit. I ultimately decided to rescind it, since
there were years of experience with the current tunable, and plenty of
documentation on it, too. We could put aio-max-nr on the deprecated
path, though, if folks want to go that route. Let me know and I can
investigate resurrecting that patch. Though I would like input on
whether a new rlimit is desired.
Cheers,
Jeff
Powered by blists - more mailing lists