From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42920 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755088AbcJ1S7n (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Oct 2016 14:59:43 -0400 From: Jeff Moyer To: Benjamin LaHaise Cc: Mauricio Faria de Oliveira , Kent Overstreet , Alexander Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-aio@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: aio: questions with ioctx_alloc() and large num_possible_cpus() References: <20161005174146.GK23336@kvack.org> <737b5bf7-329e-c59d-7601-aea0f4ffbeab@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161005181741.GL23336@kvack.org> Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 14:59:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20161005181741.GL23336@kvack.org> (Benjamin LaHaise's message of "Wed, 5 Oct 2016 14:17:41 -0400") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Benjamin LaHaise writes: > Today's high end systems are tomorrow's desktops... It probably makes Well, to some degree I agree with you. >100 processor high end systems have been around for a long time, but we still don't have those on the desktop. ;-) > sense to implement per-user limits rather than the current global limit, > and maybe even convert them to an rlimit to better fit in with the > available frameworks for managing these things. I actually wrote a patch to do this back in 2007: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1043934 It used the mlock rlimit. I ultimately decided to rescind it, since there were years of experience with the current tunable, and plenty of documentation on it, too. We could put aio-max-nr on the deprecated path, though, if folks want to go that route. Let me know and I can investigate resurrecting that patch. Though I would like input on whether a new rlimit is desired. Cheers, Jeff