From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965237AbXBOIWD (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:22:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965238AbXBOIWC (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:22:02 -0500 Received: from ecfrec.frec.bull.fr ([129.183.4.8]:43144 "EHLO ecfrec.frec.bull.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965237AbXBOIWA (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:22:00 -0500 Message-ID: <45D418DC.5040605@bull.net> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:25:00 +0100 From: Nadia Derbey Organization: BULL/DT/OSwR&D/Linux User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040115 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/6] automatic tuning applied to some kernel components References: <20070116061516.899460000@bull.net> <20070116063030.761795000@bull.net> <20070122115638.835b26a1.akpm@osdl.org> <45B61E50.6020607@bull.net> <45CC68BA.4010403@bull.net> <45D17F8D.3020207@bull.net> <45D406BF.2060009@bull.net> In-Reply-To: X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on ECN002/FR/BULL(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 15/02/2007 09:23:10, Serialize by Router on ECN002/FR/BULL(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 15/02/2007 09:23:16, Serialize complete at 15/02/2007 09:23:16 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Nadia Derbey writes: > > >>But, what do you do with Oracle that's asking maxfiles to be set to 0x10000, >>while the default value might be enough for a system that's not running Oracle. >>I'm afraid that giving boot time values to the max_* tunables we will loose all >>the benefits from /proc (or /sys): it is impossible to anticipate what an OS >>will be used for. So allowing such things to be changed without having to reboot >>the machine is in my mind quite a powerful feature we should keep taking >>adavntage of. > > > I'm not saying remove user spaces' ability to set the > denial-of-service limits. I'm saying if they need to be frequently > changed we need to update the default so they are higher by default. > > There really is no cost in moving those values up and down it is just > an arbitrary integer used in comparisons. But if we can make a good > guess that still catches runaway programs before they kill the machine > but also allows more programs to work out of the box we are in better > shape. > OK, happy to see we are on the same wavelength (and sorry for misunderstanding what you were saying ;-) ) Regards, Nadia