[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070213145709.323a6505.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:57:09 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: andi@...stfloor.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...radead.org,
hch@...radead.org, akpm@....com.au, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
drepper@...hat.com, zach.brown@...cle.com, johnpol@....mipt.ru,
davem@...emloft.net, bcrl@...ck.org, suparna@...ibm.com,
davidel@...ilserver.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [patch 05/11] syslets: core code
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:24:43 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > If it's only a few pages you don't need any resource accounting. If
> > it's more then it's nasty to steal the users quota. I think plain
> > gup() would be better.
>
> get_user_pages() would have to be limited in some way - and i didnt want
> to add yet another wacky limit thing - so i just used the already
> existing mlock() infrastructure for this. If Oracle wants to set up a 10
> MB ringbuffer, they can set the PAM resource limits to 11 MB and still
> have enough stuff left. And i dont really expect GPG to start using
> syslets - just yet ;-)
>
> a single page is enough for 1024 completion pointers - that's more than
> enough for most purposes - and the default mlock limit is 40K.
So if I have an application which instantiates a single mlocked page
for this purpose, I can only run ten of them at once, and any other
mlock-using process which I'm using starts to mysteriously fail.
It seems like a problem to me..
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists