Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964930AbXBLOHh (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:07:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964932AbXBLOHh (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:07:37 -0500 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:34177 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964930AbXBLOHg (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 09:07:36 -0500 To: Nadia.Derbey@bull.net Cc: akpm@osdl.org, randy.dunlap@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] AKT - Tunable structure and registration routines References: <20070130101143.296619000@bull.net> <20070130102908.781457000@bull.net> From: Andi Kleen Date: 12 Feb 2007 16:07:50 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20070130102908.781457000@bull.net> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1700 Lines: 38 Nadia.Derbey@bull.net writes: > + > +This feature aims at making the kernel automatically change the tunables > +values as it sees resources running out. The only reason we have resource limit is to avoid DOS when one resource consumes too much memory. When there is no such danger then there isn't any reason to have a limit at all and it could be just eliminated (or set to unlimited by default) Your feature doesn't address the DOS and without that there isn't any reason to have limits at all. So what's the point? I agree that some of the default limits we have are not very useful on modern machines. I guess you're trying to address that. I would suggest the following strategy: - Review any limits we have and make sure they make sense. - Figure out if they actually serve a useful purpose e.g. what happens when they are exceeded, is there a DOS?. If yes can the DOS be addressed in a better way (e.g. by allowing to shrink the resource by a shrinker callback). Some of the existing limits are clearly bogus, e.g. the limit on shared memory. For others i don't see a good alternative. e.g. if you don't limit the number of files allocated the only alternative would be to kill processes when they allocate too many files. Is that really preferable to a errno? - If they serve a useful purpose then check if the default is useful on a modern machine. Or make them scale with the amount of memory like many limits already do. -Andi - 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/