On 11/16/2011 01:02 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > On 11/15/2011 8:10 AM, Jerome Marchand wrote: >> >> Change since V1: rebase on 3.2-rc1 >> >> Currently RSS rlimit is not enforced. We can not forbid a process to exceeds >> its RSS limit and allow it swap out. That would hurts the performance of all >> system, even when memory resources are plentiful. >> >> Therefore, instead of enforcing a limit on rss usage alone, this patch enforces >> a limit on rss+swap value. This is similar to memsw limits of cgroup. >> If a process rss+swap usage exceeds RLIMIT_RSS max limit, he received a SIGBUS >> signal. > > No good idea. > - RLIMIT_RSS has clear definition and this patch break it. you should makes > another rlimit at least. I couldn't decide if we needed a new rlimit or not. I shall admit that I chose the lazy option. If that's a problem, I can add a new rlimit, RLIMIT_MEMSW for instance. > - SIGBUS can be ignored. rlimit shouldn't ignorable. The SIGBUS can be ignored, not the rlimit: if RLIMIT_RSS is exceeded, the process does not the memory it requested. The SIGBUS is here to notify the process that something wrong has happened. Thanks, Jerome -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>