netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp: restore correct limit

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: <4F840B99.8040409@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:29:45 +0800
From:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:	monstr@...str.eu
CC:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	John Williams <john.williams@...alogix.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: restore correct limit

On 04/10/2012 06:14 PM, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 04/10/2012 12:03 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Commit c43b874d5d714f (tcp: properly initialize tcp memory limits)
>> added a regression on machines with low amount of memory, since sockets
>> cant use 1/128 of memory but 1/1024
>>
>> Fix this to match comment and previous behavior.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet<eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>> Cc: Jason Wang<jasowang@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Glauber Costa<glommer@...allels.com>
>> ---
>>   net/ipv4/tcp.c |    2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
>> index 5d54ed3..67d726e 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
>> @@ -3302,7 +3302,7 @@ void __init tcp_init(void)
>>
>>       tcp_init_mem(&init_net);
>>       /* Set per-socket limits to no more than 1/128 the pressure 
>> threshold */
>> -    limit = nr_free_buffer_pages()<<  (PAGE_SHIFT - 10);
>> +    limit = nr_free_buffer_pages()<<  (PAGE_SHIFT - 7);
>>       limit = max(limit, 128UL);
>>       max_share = min(4UL*1024*1024, limit);
>>
>
> hw design with csum is also much better.
> Tested-by: Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>
>
> Thanks for help,
> Michal
>
>
>
>
>
Hi Michal and Eric:

Which version of kernel did you test, did you try the newest kernel? The 
reason I use (PAGE_SHIFT - 10) is in the commit before 3dc43e3, the 
limit were calculated with:

     limit = nr_free_buffer_pages() / 8;
     limit = max(limit, 128UL);
...
     limit = ((unsigned long)sysctl_tcp_mem[1]) << (PAGE_SHIFT - 7);

So the rmem should be ok. But there's a defect (which I think does 
affect the regression) of my patch would could cause limit that we 
should shift after comparing with 128UL like:

     limit = nr_free_buffer_pages() / 8;
     limit = max(limit, 128UL) << (PAGE_SHIFT - 7);

Is anything I miss?

Thanks




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html