> On 2017年9月9日, at 下午1:16, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: > > From: 严海双 <yanhaishu...@cmss.chinamobile.com> > Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 13:09:57 +0800 > >> >> >>> On 2017年9月9日, at 下午12:35, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:25 PM, 严海双 <yanhaishu...@cmss.chinamobile.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 2017年9月9日, at 上午6:13, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Haishuang Yan >>>>> <yanhaishu...@cmss.chinamobile.com> wrote: >>>>>> Different namespace application might require different maximal number >>>>>> of TCP sockets independently of the host. >>>>> >>>>> So after your patch we could have N * net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans >>>>> in a whole system, right? This just makes OOM easier to trigger. >>>>> >>>> >>>> From my understanding, before the patch, we had N * >>>> net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans, >>>> and after the patch, we could have ns1.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans + >>>> ns2.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans >>>> + ns3.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans, is that right? Thanks for your reviewing. >>> >>> Nope, by N I mean the number of containers. Before your patch, the limit >>> is global, after your patch it is per container. >>> >> >> Yeah, for example, if there is N containers, before the patch, I mean the >> limit is: >> >> N * net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans >> >> After the patch, the limit is: >> >> ns1. net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans + ns2. >> net->ipv4.sysctl_tcp_max_orphans + … > > Not true. > > Please remove "N" from your equation of the current situation. > > "sysctl_tcp_max_orphans" applies to entire system, it is a global limit, > comparing one limit against all orphans in the system, there is no N.
Yes, it’s right. I browse the source code and found that it’s a global limit, sorry for my mistake. Thanks David and Cong.
