Re: max_user_watches overflows on 16TB system.

[Davide Libenzi]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

> Davide Libenzi <davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Robin Holt wrote:
> >
> >> 
> >> Following a boot of a 16TB system, we noticed that the max_user_watches
> >> sysctl was negative.  Is there any downside to converting that to a
> >> static long and handling the fallout from the change?  I believe that
> >> fallout includes changing the definition of epoll_watches over to an
> >> atomic_long_t as well.
> >> 
> >> Alternatively should we just limit max_user_watches to INT_MAX?
> >
> > 2B watches looks an acceptable limit to me, at least for now.
> > Nobody complained about not having enough of them so far.
> 
> Which suggests that we need to force the boot time calculation to not
> exceed 2B.
> 
> From the sysctl interface perspective now that all of it is exported as
> ascii strings I don't see a problem there.

Thinking with actual code at hands, you're right.  It just makes more 
sense the 'long' variable conversion, even though MAX_INT watches are a 
huge number today.
Robin, sorry for the confusion.  Can you post the 'long' conversion patch?


- Davide


--
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/