Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:49:24 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: andrea@suse.de, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [lockup] Re: objrmap-core-1 (rmap removal for file mappings to avoid 4:4 in <=16G machines)
Message-ID: <20040309114924.GA4581@elte.hu>
References: <20040308202433.GA12612@dualathlon.random> <20040309105226.GA2863@elte.hu> <20040309110233.GA3819@elte.hu> <20040309030907.71a53a7c.akpm@osdl.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040309030907.71a53a7c.akpm@osdl.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 969
Lines: 26


* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:

> > or run the attached test-mmap2.c code, which simulates a very small DB
> >  app using only 1800 vmas per process: it only maps 8 MB of shm and
> >  spawns 32 processes. This has an even more lethal effect than the
> >  previous code.
> 
> Do these tests actually make any forward progress at all, or is it some bug
> which has sent the kernel into a loop?

i think they make a forward progress so it's more of a DoS - but a very
effective one, especially considering that i didnt even try hard ...

what worries me is that there are apps that generate such vma patterns
(for various reasons).

I do believe that scanning ->i_mmap & ->i_mmap_shared is fundamentally
flawed.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/