> From: David Miller [mailto:da...@davemloft.net]
> Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2016 1:41
> To: Dexuan Cui <de...@microsoft.com>
> Cc: gre...@linuxfoundation.org; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> ker...@vger.kernel.org; de...@linuxdriverproject.org; o...@aepfle.de;
> a...@canonical.com; jasow...@redhat.com; cav...@redhat.com; KY
> Srinivasan <k...@microsoft.com>; Haiyang Zhang <haiya...@microsoft.com>;
> j...@perches.com; vkuzn...@redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 net-next 1/2] hv_sock: introduce Hyper-V Sockets
>
> From: Dexuan Cui <de...@microsoft.com>
> Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 10:49:25 +0000
>
> > I should be able to make 'send', 'recv' here to pointers and use vmalloc()
> > to allocate the memory for them. I will do this.
>
> That's still unswappable kernel memory.
Hi David,
My understanding is: kernel pages are not swappable in Linux, so it looks I
can't avoid unswappable kernel memory here?
> People can open N sockets, where N is something on the order of the FD
> limit the process has, per process. This allows someone to quickly
> eat up a lot of memory and hold onto it nearly indefinitely.
Thanks for pointing this out!
I understand, so I think I should add a module parameter, e.g.,
"hv_sock.max_socket_number" with a default value, say, 1024?
1 established hv_sock connection takes less than 20 pages, including 10
pages for VMBus ringbuffer, 6 pages for send/recv buffers(I'll use
vmalloc() for this), etc.
Here the recv buf needs a size of 5 pages because potentially the host
can send the guest a VMBus packet with an up-to-5-page payload, i..e,
the VMBus inbound ringbuffer size.
1024 hv_sock connections take less than 20*4KB * 1K = 80MB memory.
A user who needs more connections can change the module parameter
without reboot.
hv_sock connection is designed to work only between the host and the
guest. I think 1024 connections seem pretty enough.
BTW, a user can't create hv_sock connections without enough privilege.
Please see
+static int hvsock_create(struct net *net, struct socket *sock,
+ int protocol, int kern)
+{
+ if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) && !capable(CAP_NET_ADMIN))
+ return -EPERM;
David, does this make sense to you?
Thanks,
-- Dexuan
