From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/3] UDP memory usage accounting Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20070928.215159.58440039.davem@davemloft.net> References: <46FD0117.9030407@hitachi.com> <20070928.214737.120464821.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: satoshi.oshima.fk@hitachi.com, johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru, netdev@vger.kernel.org, haoki@redhat.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, yumiko.sugita.yf@hitachi.com To: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:60513 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751679AbXI2EwA (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:52:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070928.214737.120464821.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: David Miller Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:47:37 -0700 (PDT) > Per-user limits are not necessarily the answer. Seeing myself say this reminds me that it seems to have been missed in all of this that we do have a limit per user already. There is a per-socket send buffer limit, and there is a per-user open file descriptor limit. Multiply the two to determine how much system memory the user can consume using sockets. This is why I view a lot ofthis work as quite pointless. We already have limits, but nobody wants to use them for performance reasons :-)