From: Josh Triplett <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
[email protected],
"David S . Miller" <[email protected]>,
Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected],
Stefan Metzmacher <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] open/accept directly into io_uring fixed file table
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2021 20:42:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YRiNGTL2Dp/7vNzt@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 05:03:44PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> What's the plan in terms of limiting the amount of direct descriptors
> (for lack of a better word)? That seems like an important aspect that
> should get sorted out upfront.
[...]
> Maybe we have a way to size the direct table, which will consume entries
> from the same pool that the regular file table does? That would then
> work both ways, and could potentially just be done dynamically similarly
> to how we expand the regular file table when we exceed its current size.
I think we'll want a way to size the direct table regardless, so that
it's pre-allocated and doesn't need to be resized when an index is used.
Then, we could do one of two equally easy things, depending on what
policy we want to set:
- Deduct the full size of the fixed-file table from the allowed number
of files the process can have open. So, if RLIMIT_NOFILE is 1048576,
and you pre-allocate 1000000 entries in the fixed-file table, you can
have no more than 48576 file descriptors open. Stricter, but
potentially problematic: a program *might* expect that it can
dup2(some_fd, nofile - 1) successfully.
- Use RLIMIT_NOFILE as the maximum size of the fixed-file table. There's
precedent for this: we already use RLIMIT_NOFILE as the maximum number
of file descriptors you can have in flight over UNIX sockets.
I personally would favor the latter; it seems simple and
straightforward.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-15 3:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-13 16:43 [PATCH v2 0/4] open/accept directly into io_uring fixed file table Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-13 16:43 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] net: add accept helper not installing fd Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-13 16:43 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] io_uring: openat directly into fixed fd table Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-13 16:43 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] io_uring: hand code io_accept() fd installing Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-13 16:43 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] io_uring: accept directly into fixed file table Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-13 19:00 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] open/accept directly into io_uring " Josh Triplett
2021-08-14 12:50 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-14 23:03 ` Jens Axboe
2021-08-15 3:42 ` Josh Triplett [this message]
2021-08-15 15:05 ` Jens Axboe
2021-08-15 15:12 ` Jens Axboe
2021-08-15 13:00 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-15 3:31 ` Josh Triplett
2021-08-15 10:48 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-15 14:23 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-16 15:45 ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-08-17 9:33 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-08-17 14:57 ` Jens Axboe
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=YRiNGTL2Dp/7vNzt@localhost \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/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