[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.6.26-rc8-mm1] memrlimit: fix mmap_sem deadlock
    On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:19:45 +0530 Balbir Singh <> wrote:

    > Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > There doesn't seem to have been much discussion regarding your recent
    > > objections to the memrlimit patches. But it caused me to put a big
    > > black mark on them. Perhaps sending it all again would be helpful.
    > Black marks are not good, but there have been some silly issues found with them.
    > I have been addressing/answering concerns raised so far. Would you like me to
    > fold all patches and fixes and send them out for review again?

    I was referring to the below (which is where the conversation ended).

    It questions the basis of the whole feature.

    On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 06:31:05 +0530 Balbir Singh <> wrote:

    > Hugh Dickins wrote:
    > ...
    > > (In passing, I'll add that I'm not a great fan of these memrlimits:
    > > to me it's loony to be charging people for virtual address space,
    > > it's _virtual_, and process A can have as much as it likes without
    > > affecting process B in any way. You're following the lead of RLIMIT_AS,
    > > but I've always thought RLIMIT_AS a lame attempt to move into the mmap
    > > decade, after RLIMIT_DATA and RLIMIT_STACK no longer made sense.
    > >
    > > Taking Alan Cox's Committed_AS as a limited resource charged per mm makes
    > > much more sense to me: but yes, it's not perfect, and it is a lot harder
    > > to get its accounting right, and to maintain that down the line. Okay,
    > > you've gone for the easier option of tracking total_vm, getting that
    > > right is a more achievable target. And I accept that I may be too
    > > pessimistic about it: total_vm may often enough give a rough
    > > approximation to something else worth limiting.)
    > You seem to have read my mind, my motivation for memrlimits is
    > 1. Administrators to set a limit and be sure that a cgroup cannot consume more
    > swap + RSS than the assigned virtual memory limit
    > 2. It allows applications to fail gracefully or decide what parts to free up
    > to get more memory or change their allocation pattern (a scientific application
    > deciding what size of matrix to allocate for example).

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-07-04 04:05    [W:0.021 / U:46.300 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site