From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, neilb@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: make warning in svc_check_conn_limits() more generic
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:21:02 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081015202102.GC5038@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081015081457.56ef3778-RtJpwOs3+0O+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org>
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 08:14:57AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> From the descriptions in those commits, it looks like the check
> in svc_check_conn_limits was intended to prevent messages from too
> many sockets overloading the receive buffers.
Aren't the receive buffers per-connection?
--b.
> We size the UDP receive buffers by the number of threads:
>
> (serv->sv_nrthreads+3) * serv->sv_max_mesg
>
> TCP receive buffers are statically sized fairly small and don't ever
> seem to change since sv_max_mesg is pretty much set at server
> creation time:
>
> 3 * serv->sv_max_mesg
>
> ...the comments in svc_tcp_recvfrom explain the reason for it.
>
> Given all of this, it seems reasonable to eliminate the check
> entirely for TCP. For UDP, it looks like we expect that 1 buffer
> can handle up to 20 connections. I'm not sure where this ratio
> comes from though...
>
> Anyone else have thoughts on this?
>
> --
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-15 20:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-09-12 13:12 [PATCH] sunrpc: make warning in svc_check_conn_limits() more generic Jeff Layton
2008-09-24 21:57 ` J. Bruce Fields
2008-09-25 20:23 ` Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <20080925162315.6f29d092-RtJpwOs3+0O+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org>
2008-10-15 12:14 ` Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <20081015081457.56ef3778-RtJpwOs3+0O+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org>
2008-10-15 20:21 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2008-10-16 0:51 ` Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <20081015205118.14de4611-RtJpwOs3+0O+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org>
2008-10-16 2:08 ` NeilBrown
[not found] ` <fdcfe437d88ecb7d49ea4b2729407dc5.squirrel-eq65iwfR9nKIECXXMXunQA@public.gmane.org>
2008-10-16 13:48 ` Jeff Layton
2008-10-17 0:14 ` Neil Brown
[not found] ` <18679.55525.146056.752860-wvvUuzkyo1EYVZTmpyfIwg@public.gmane.org>
2008-10-17 14:55 ` William A. (Andy) Adamson
[not found] ` <89c397150810170755r578ae723o89ab7b475b894704-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2008-10-17 18:29 ` J. Bruce Fields
2008-10-17 18:20 ` J. Bruce Fields
2008-10-17 18:27 ` Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <20081017142753.6485571f-RtJpwOs3+0O+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org>
2008-10-17 18:29 ` J. Bruce Fields
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20081015202102.GC5038@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox