This patch set try to introduce memory usage accounting for
UDP(currently ipv4 only).
This is the second post of take 2 patch, because previous
post was broken by my MUA setting.
Only what I chage is my MUA setting. There is no code
change from take 2.
This patch set is for 2.6.23-rc8.
I appre
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 09:47:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> There are two things we (might) need to guard against, one local and
>> one remote.
>
> Right I was focusing on the local threat.
>
>> If you do a per-user limit, apache would basically just stop at that
>> redzone point. In some s
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 09:51:59PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> There is a per-socket send buffer limit, and there is a per-user open
>> file descriptor limit. Multiply the two to determine how much system
>> memory the user can consume using sockets.
>
> We do have these limi
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 09:47:37PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>
> There are two things we (might) need to guard against, one local and
> one remote.
Right I was focusing on the local threat.
> If you do a per-user limit, apache would basically just stop at that
> redzone point. In some sense mak
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 09:51:59PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>
> There is a per-socket send buffer limit, and there is a per-user open
> file descriptor limit. Multiply the two to determine how much system
> memory the user can consume using sockets.
We do have these limits but they're per-proc
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
> Per-user limits are not necessarily the answer.
Seeing myself say this reminds me that it seems to have been missed in
all of this that we do have a limit per user already.
There is a per-socket send buffer limi
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:21:05 +0800
> Satoshi OSHIMA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > In such case, from 300 to 500MB memory consumption will
> > be fatal. Users can easily open 1000 sockets per process
> > under default ulimit. If such sockets hold message
Satoshi OSHIMA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In such case, from 300 to 500MB memory consumption will
> be fatal. Users can easily open 1000 sockets per process
> under default ulimit. If such sockets hold messages but
> user processes don't receive it. Almost all slab will
> be occupied by sk_buff
This patch set try to introduce memory usage accounting for
UDP(currently ipv4 only).
3 points are improved along with some feedback.
(a) to improve scalability, avoiding atomic_*()s as small as
possible
(b) avoiding UDP specific code in IP layer
(c) supporting socket destruction accou
Hi,
Thank you for your comment.
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 09:18:07PM +0900, Satoshi OSHIMA
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> This patch set try to introduce memory usage accounting for
>> UDP(currently ipv4 only).
>>
>> Currently, memory usage of UDP can be observed a
Hello,
Apologies for late response.
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
Hi.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 09:18:07PM +0900, Satoshi OSHIMA ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
This patch set try to introduce memory usage accounting for
UDP(currently ipv4 only).
Currently, memory usage of UDP can be observed as the sam
Hi.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 09:18:07PM +0900, Satoshi OSHIMA ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> This patch set try to introduce memory usage accounting for
> UDP(currently ipv4 only).
>
> Currently, memory usage of UDP can be observed as the sam of
> usage of tx_queue and rx_queue. But I believe that
This patch set try to introduce memory usage accounting for
UDP(currently ipv4 only).
Currently, memory usage of UDP can be observed as the sam of
usage of tx_queue and rx_queue. But I believe that the system
wide accounting is usefull when heavy loaded condition.
In the next step, I would like t
13 matches
Mail list logo
