[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <798CA25A-CA09-4D06-A9B6-7C5791A6EEC1@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 09:25:40 +0800
From: 严海双 <yanhaishuang@...s.chinamobile.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: Namespaceify tcp_max_orphans knob
> On 2017年9月9日, at 上午6:13, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Haishuang Yan
> <yanhaishuang@...s.chinamobile.com> wrote:
>> Different namespace application might require different maximal number
>> of TCP sockets independently of the host.
>
> So after your patch we could have N * net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans
> in a whole system, right? This just makes OOM easier to trigger.
>
>From my understanding, before the patch, we had N * net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans,
and after the patch, we could have ns1.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans + ns2.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans
+ ns3.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans, is that right? Thanks for your reviewing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists