Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core
From: Neil Brown
Date: Mon Aug 14 2006 - 03:15:22 EST
On Monday August 14, a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 22:22 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > We could track dirty anonymous memory and throttle.
> > Also, there must be some value of /proc/sys/vm/min_free_kbytes at which a
> > machine is no longer deadlockable with any of these tricks. Do we know
> > what level that is?
> Not sure, the theoretical max amount of memory one can 'lose' in socket
> wait queues is well over the amount of physical memory we have in
> machines today (even for SGI); this combined with the fact that we limit
> the memory in some way to avoid DoS attacks, could make for all memory
> to be stuck in wait queues. Of course this becomes rather more unlikely
> for ever larger amounts of memory. But unlikely is never a guarantee.
What is the minimum amount of memory we need to reserve for each
socket? 1K? 1 page? Call it X
Suppose that whenever a socket is created (or bound or connected or
whatever is right) we first allocate that much to a recv pool.
If any socket has less than X queued, then it is allowed to allocate
up to a total of X from the reserve pool. After that it can only
receive when memory can be allocated from elsewhere. Then we will
never block on recv.
Note that X doesn't need to be the biggest possible incoming message.
It only needs to be enough to get an 'ack' over any possible network
storage protocol with any possible layering. I suspect that it well
within one page.
Would it be too much waste to reserve one page for every idle socket?
Does this have some fatal flaw?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/