Hello, On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 03:37:46PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > It isn't different from listening from epoll, for example. > > epoll limits the number of watchers, no? Not that I know of. It'll be limited by max open fds but I don't think there are other limits. Why would there be? > > If there needs to be kernel memory limit, shouldn't that be handled by > > kmemcg? > > kmemcg would surely help but turning it on just because of potential > abuse of the event registration API sounds like an overkill. > > I think having a cap for user trigable kernel resources is a good thing > in general. I don't know. It's just very arbitrary because listening to events itself isn't (and shouldn't) be something which consumes resource which isn't attributed to the listener and this artificially creates a global resource. The problem with memory usage event is breaching that rule with shared kmalloc() so putting well-defined limit on it is fine but the latter two create additional artificial restrictions which are both unnecessary and unconventional. No? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>