[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: "per-process" limits (was: Showstopper list)

On 13-Oct-98 Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
>>Dean Gaudet writes:
>>On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Paul Barton-Davis wrote:
>>> "Per process" limits for anything under Linux are difficult to
>>> envisage in a world of multi-threaded processes.
>>Share a pointer to struct process_limits. Another level of indirection
>>solves yet another problem...
> Indeed. Except that I'm interested in a more general solution to the
> problem of the missing kernel abstraction. Linux currently has no
> notion of "a group of tasks"; such an abstraction is both useful for
> process limits, and lots of other things as well.

I don't know - is a process or group of processes really the central
abstraction for resource tracking? Sure, processes consume memory and
processor time, but the consumer of disk space is independent of what process
did the writing.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.049 / U:3.232 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site