On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:24 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Since bpf is not using memlock rlimit for memory accounting,
> there are no more reasons to bump the limit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.c | 16 ----------------
> 1 file changed, 16 deletions(-)
>
This can go, I suppose, we still have a runqslower variant in BCC with
this logic, to show an example on what/how to do this for kernels
without this patch set applied.
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx>
> diff --git a/tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.c b/tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.c
> index d89715844952..a3380b53ce0c 100644
> --- a/tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.c
> +++ b/tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.c
> @@ -88,16 +88,6 @@ int libbpf_print_fn(enum libbpf_print_level level,
> return vfprintf(stderr, format, args);
> }
>
> -static int bump_memlock_rlimit(void)
> -{
> - struct rlimit rlim_new = {
> - .rlim_cur = RLIM_INFINITY,
> - .rlim_max = RLIM_INFINITY,
> - };
> -
> - return setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &rlim_new);
> -}
> -
> void handle_event(void *ctx, int cpu, void *data, __u32 data_sz)
> {
> const struct event *e = data;
> @@ -134,12 +124,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>
> libbpf_set_print(libbpf_print_fn);
>
> - err = bump_memlock_rlimit();
> - if (err) {
> - fprintf(stderr, "failed to increase rlimit: %d", err);
> - return 1;
> - }
> -
> obj = runqslower_bpf__open();
> if (!obj) {
> fprintf(stderr, "failed to open and/or load BPF object\n");
> --
> 2.26.2
>
