[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1447543.1650552898@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:54:58 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Jeffle Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, linux-cachefs@...hat.com, xiang@...nel.org,
chao@...nel.org, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
willy@...radead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com, bo.liu@...ux.alibaba.com,
tao.peng@...ux.alibaba.com, gerry@...ux.alibaba.com,
eguan@...ux.alibaba.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
luodaowen.backend@...edance.com, tianzichen@...ishou.com,
fannaihao@...du.com, zhangjiachen.jaycee@...edance.com
Subject: EMFILE/ENFILE mitigation needed in erofs?
Jeffle Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> + fd_install(fd, file);
Do you need to mitigate potential EMFILE/ENFILE problems? You're potentially
trebling up the number of accounted systemwide fds: one for erofs itself, one
anonfd per cache object file to communicate with the daemon and one in the
daemon to talk to the server. Cachefiles has a fourth internally, but it's
kept off the books - further, cachefiles closes them fairly quickly after a
period of nonuse.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists