From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902E1C433F5 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 16:10:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239268AbiC2QMF (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:12:05 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54536 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230330AbiC2QMC (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:12:02 -0400 Received: from out203-205-221-191.mail.qq.com (out203-205-221-191.mail.qq.com [203.205.221.191]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C878FE43AA for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 09:10:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=foxmail.com; s=s201512; t=1648570210; bh=mE9DRDsHIsIHAbKbJFK2/CHjDpNdpunTcLE/Dg65eAI=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=Dvu/zZXYxlw+7IC7fC0iLm3ZvARxX7CzLK6ef6jjY2f3IAZfB5ZLL2hblPoO5RND/ ZYGn2SmomZNzlrEdvCjIlJKB8KrSRjRjepuvOGxguDEQZgipSKniIYkd7ukpAzlSHJ uSkiM4ol6edA557OquaKshsZG3ugr+t6AdMeo2jI= Received: from [192.168.31.6] ([120.245.132.52]) by newxmesmtplogicsvrszc11.qq.com (NewEsmtp) with SMTP id 28897A01; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 00:10:08 +0800 X-QQ-mid: xmsmtpt1648570208tm8np4p8u Message-ID: X-QQ-XMAILINFO: OYji31yNgomxdzawO0x/piNS6YFdtMMQ9FSm2rMyK0ZKdKsF7BqYhCbcqbwoqe zIDca7AZHfKpDI2L+27tL+KnvLyR9x6RzBCEIZ9B4BkS4ik46njjwKNB77HhZuCnWbCkUAC3kfuU 5zRur5hZB4BU8eSlXIT8XrWbuaDw1HXA1prNkvtjhVT8I0MRkRKzlePtdeMb61HC5mLlUWhzzp2+ EZkazy60AjWGEKJ6K3bmuiAOs1AA0XaMs2g7YgdimbIuvuKvybhQn6qXSpUQ+RleaQJFoqft692N h6mAAVIpGEAWyAej6EJKSqzt+MrWubXLWaS9F5j4S82FSY89gxKFGZLYstjUHz1zI6hglcNRE73p 22aT0X9P1QSwB4y90BxwIjWZU8Eq8otD7wr0cHJfGJU0PGOZbwT1S8PYhhnOEvVB2Z2VnQ7DH0bk 7ClNIi+Tcxk2nR/LJ0LZLRRQKWFjSSvcV441pEkF/nLnetAXA2f8Ex9ESiQHnZjhZMaHzWNEQbMB dCO8+6/Pw4u0X9FRqtX+2ol8DHvX/jReSSGr7dBAtICO5hna3OmGuflNrdsAuGxNMubnkhSJ0Rww Jai9IVA8zbE/iBNJV1vOxcVXjN7mXr8kvaMCP9ZuFHGRyvetQXqbMimDKIhZ9O6kfMgURpoRlc5X H+kfaggx7eOUabExe3RmT0R3reL1c3UyZ3DjeHihkTwMX9OlfKqr91nFgU4A3X3GUge10khC+jco wxZPSH8Xs1JqeJV01u4HSWKcyONaFG7XsEc93HDPOn7qTBvsvufxpDRhhMOZ/ryQ/Cvh9BYsm8yI 2pGoCzQDrI8/dBhoA5H6tqlEQ4IwsMm2zwpWM829u2kc5RaB8/AwpMB9I73dP3Gs+psCKeCE7sB5 yYzEw4mTBCK4JAlwLVrQs= X-OQ-MSGID: <0c20c29b-acc5-3bfa-4947-b7629c2a56ea@foxmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 00:10:08 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ipmi: msghandler: check the users and msgs causing the system to block Content-Language: en-US To: minyard@acm.org Cc: openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20220328013842.GN3457@minyard.net> <20220328154545.GP3457@minyard.net> From: chenchacha In-Reply-To: <20220328154545.GP3457@minyard.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2022/3/28 23:45, Corey Minyard wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:27:06PM +0800, chenchacha wrote: >> >>> Anyway, a better solution for the kernel side of things, I think, would >>> be to add limits on the number of users and the number of messages per >>> user. That's more inline with what other kernel things do. I know of >>> nothing else in the kernel that does what you are proposing. >> >> The precondition for add limits, is that people known that ipmi has too many >> users and messages cause problems, this patch is to let administrator known >> that. >> >> In addition, different machines have different limit, My server my block >> 700,000 messages and it's fine, and my NAS pc went to OOM when it probably >> blocked for 10,000 messages. So, to limit the number of users and messages, >> can wait until we have accumulated some online experience? > > I don't mean a limit on the total number of messages, but a limit on the > total number of oustanding messages, and a limit on the total number of > users. No user should have more than a handful of oustanding message, > and limiting the number of users to 20 or 30 should be more than enough > for any system. > > Having those limits in place would probably help you trace down your > problem, as you would hit the limits and it should report it at the > source of the problem. > > -corey Hi Corey: According to your suggestion, I have don some tests. After adding limits, event if the bmc hardware fails, the ipmi will not occupy a large memory in system. The modifications are in the next version of the patch. Thanks -- Chen Guanqiao