linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 0/7] fs/dcache: Track & limit # of negative dentries

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180711102139.GG20050@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 11 Jul 2018 12:21:39 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        "Paul E. 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 v6 0/7] fs/dcache: Track & limit # of negative dentries

On Tue 10-07-18 12:09:17, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 07/10/2018 10:27 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon 09-07-18 12:01:04, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> On 07/09/2018 04:19 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> >>> percentage has turned out to be a really wrong unit for many tunables
> >>> over time. Even 1% can be just too much on really large machines.
> >> Yes, that is true. Do you have any suggestion of what kind of unit
> >> should be used? I can scale down the unit to 0.1% of the system memory.
> >> Alternatively, one unit can be 10k/cpu thread, so a 20-thread system
> >> corresponds to 200k, etc.
> > I simply think this is a strange user interface. How much is a
> > reasonable number? How can any admin figure that out?
> 
> Without the optional enforcement, the limit is essentially just a
> notification mechanism where the system signals that there is something
> wrong going on and the system administrator need to take a look. So it
> is perfectly OK if the limit is sufficiently high that normally we won't
> need to use that many negative dentries. The goal is to prevent negative
> dentries from consuming a significant portion of the system memory.

So again. How do you tell the right number?

> I am going to reduce the granularity of each unit to 1/1000 of the total
> system memory so that for large system with TB of memory, a smaller
> amount of memory can be specified.

It is just a matter of time for this to be too coarse as well.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs