Re: [PATCH] RSS ulimit enforcement for 2.6.8

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Good question.  What I'm groping for here is some definition of what we
> actually want the feature to _do_.  Once we have that, and have suitably
> argued about it, we can then go off and see if the patch actually does it.

What I want the feature to do is allow users to set an
RSS rlimit to prevent a process from hogging up all the
machine's memory.

I am not looking for a hard memory limit, since that
would just cause extra IO, which has bad consequences
for the rest of the system.

In addition, I would like the patch to be relatively
low impact, not giving us much maintenance overhead or
much runtime overhead.

If anybody has good reasons for needing hard per-process
RSS limits, let us know.  So far I haven't seen anybody
with a workload that somehow requires a hard limit.

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/