On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 09:50:03AM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Andrea Righi wrote:
> >> I'm looking for a way to keep track of the processes that fail to
> >> allocate new
> >> virtual memory. What do you think about the following approach
> >> (untested)?
> >
> > Looks like an easy way for users to spam syslogd over and
> > over and over again.
> >
> > At the very least, shouldn't this be dependant on print_fatal_signals?
> >
>
> Anyway, with print-fatal-signals enabled a user could spam syslogd too, simply
> with a (char *)0 = 0 program, but we could always identify the spam attempts
> logging the process uid...
>
> In any case, I agree, it should depend on that patch...
>
> What about adding a simple msleep_interruptible(SOME_MSECS) at the end of
> log_vm_enomem() or, at least, a might_sleep() to limit the potential spam/second
> rate?
An msleep will slow down this process, but do nothing about slowing
down the amount of logging. Simply fork a few more processes and all
you are doing with msleep is polluting the pid space.
What about a throttling similar to what ia64 does for floating point
assist faults (handle_fpu_swa()). There is a thread flag to not log
the events at all. It is rate throttled globally, but uses per cpu
variables for early exits. This algorithm scaled well to a thousand
cpus.
I think this may be a good fit.
Good Luck,
Robin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
