Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jul 2021 06:32:15 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     brookxu <brookxu.cn@gmail.com>
Cc:     viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, lizefan.x@bytedance.com,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] misc_cgroup: add support for nofile limit
Message-ID: <YQA1D1GRiF9+px/s@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <3fd94563b4949ffbfe10e7d18ac1df3852b103a6.1626966339.git.brookxu@tencent.com>
 <YP8ovYqISzKC43mt@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <b2ff6f80-8ec6-e260-ec42-2113e8ce0a18@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b2ff6f80-8ec6-e260-ec42-2113e8ce0a18@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 11:18:00AM +0800, brookxu wrote:
> According to files_maxfiles_init(), we only allow about 10% of free memory to
> create filps, and each filp occupies about 1K of cache. In this way, on a 16G
> memory machine, the maximum usable filp is about 1,604,644. In general
> scenarios, this may not be a big problem, but if the task is abnormal, it will
> very likely become a bottleneck and affect other modules. 

Yeah but that can be configured trivially through sysfs. The reason why the
default limit is lowered is because we wanna prevent a part of system to
consume all the memory through fds. With cgroups, we already have that
protection and at least some systems already configure file-max to maximum,
so I don't see a point in adding another interface to subdivide the
artificial limit.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun