On Tue, 5 May 2020 13:44:42 +0100 Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not cli=
> ck links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the=
> content is safe.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 09:28:39AM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > From: SeongJae Park <sjp...@amazon.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"?
Actually observed. Sorry for lack of that explanation. Could you please refer
to this link?
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20200505115402.25768-1-sjp...@amazon.com/
Thanks,
SeongJae Park
