On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 02:58:12PM -0300, Mauricio Faria de Oliveira wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> On 10/05/2016 02:41 PM, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> >I'd suggest increasing the default limit by changing how it is calculated.
> >The current number came about 13 years ago when machines had orders of
> >magnitude less RAM than they do today.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion.
>
> Does the default also have implications other than memory usage?
> For example, concurrency/performance of as much aio contexts running,
> or if userspace could try to exploit some point with a larger number?
Anything's possible when a local user can run code. It's the same problem
as determining how much memory can be mlock()ed, or how much i/o a process
should be allowed to do. Nothing prevents an app from doing a huge amount
of readahed() calls to make the system prefetch gigabytes of data. That
said, local users tend not to DoS themselves.
> Wondering about it because it can be set based on num_possible_cpus(),
> but that might be really large on high-end systems.
Today's high end systems are tomorrow's desktops... It probably makes
sense to implement per-user limits rather than the current global limit,
and maybe even convert them to an rlimit to better fit in with the
available frameworks for managing these things.
-ben
> Regards,
>
> --
> Mauricio Faria de Oliveira
> IBM Linux Technology Center
--
"Thought is the essence of where you are now."
