[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 13:44:42 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 09:28:39AM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> From: SeongJae Park <sjpark@...zon.de>
>
> The commit 6d7855c54e1e ("sockfs: switch to ->free_inode()") made the
> deallocation of 'socket_alloc' to be done asynchronously using RCU, as
> same to 'sock.wq'. And the following commit 333f7909a857 ("coallocate
> socket_sq with socket itself") made those to have same life cycle.
>
> The changes made the code much more simple, but also made 'socket_alloc'
> live longer than before. For the reason, user programs intensively
> repeating allocations and deallocations of sockets could cause memory
> pressure on recent kernels.
>
> To avoid the problem, this commit reverts the changes.
Is it "could cause" or is it "have been actually observed to"?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists