[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyH6dHw-7R3364dn32J4p7kxT=TqmnuozCn9_Bz-MHhxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:34:00 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
"Wangkai (Kevin,C)" <wangkai86@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] fs/dcache: Track & limit # of negative dentries
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:52 PM Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> A rogue application can potentially create a large number of negative
> dentries in the system consuming most of the memory available if it
> is not under the direct control of a memory controller that enforce
> kernel memory limit.
I certainly don't mind the patch series, but I would like it to be
accompanied with some actual example numbers, just to make it all a
bit more concrete.
Maybe even performance numbers showing "look, I've filled the dentry
lists with nasty negative dentries, now it's all slower because we
walk those less interesting entries".
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists