On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 4:15 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 03:05:11PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:21 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > As bpf is not using memlock rlimit for memory accounting anymore, > > > let's remove the related code from libbpf. > > > > > > Bpf operations can't fail because of exceeding the limit anymore. > > > > > > > They can't in the newest kernel, but libbpf will keep working and > > supporting old kernels for a very long time now. So please don't > > remove any of this. > > Yeah, good point, agree. > So we just can drop this patch from the series, no other changes > are needed. > > > > > But it would be nice to add a detection of whether kernel needs a > > RLIMIT_MEMLOCK bump or not. Is there some simple and reliable way to > > detect this from user-space? > > Hm, the best idea I can think of is to wait for -EPERM before bumping. > We can in theory look for the presence of memory.stat::percpu in cgroupfs, > but it's way to cryptic. > As I just mentioned on another thread, checking fdinfo's "memlock: 0" should be reliable enough, no? > Thanks!
