Hey Jörn, On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 05:53:20PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Tue, 11 June 2013 17:16:01 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:29:21PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote: > > > I've seen a couple of instances where people try to impose a vsize > > > limit simply because there is no rss limit in Linux. The vsize limit > > > is a horrible approximation and even this patch seems to be an > > > improvement. > > > > > > Would there be strong opposition to actually supporting RLIMIT_RSS? > > > > This is trivial to exploit by creating the mappings first and > > populating them later, so while it may cover some use cases, it does > > not have the protection against malicious programs aspect that all the > > other rlimits have. > > Hm. The use case I have is that an application wants to limit itself. > It is effectively a special assert to catch memory leaks and the like. > So malicious programs are not my immediate concern. Just out of curisoity. It means you already know the max rss of the application in advance so you can use taskstats's hiwater_rss if you don't need to catch the moment which rss is over the limit. -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>