[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m2jb6fcc0a1005052339h3dd5c77cwd762c65a23180638@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 09:39:28 +0300
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Resource limits interface proposal [was: pull request for
writable limits]
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> It may also be that rlimit64 will contain flags like:
>> #define RLIM64_CUR_INFINITY 0x00000001
>> #define RLIM64_MAX_INFINITY 0x00000002
>> struct rlimit64 {
>> __u64 rlim_cur;
>> __u64 rlim_max;
>> __u32 flags;
>> };
>> if I understood Alexey correctly to separate limits values from
>> infinity? flags then will be converted to ~0ul when converting from
>> rlimit64 to rlimit above too.
>
> Ok, I'm not entirely sure we need to care specially about INFINITY,
> _especially_ since INF is really rather big in 64 bits. So to some degree,
> making things 64-bit is _less_ likely to make INFINITIES a problem.
I'm _sure_, someone will mention bloat and performance degradation
on 32-bit, so there will be config option for 32-bit in-kernel limits.
And if there will be config option, infinities are better be separated.
--
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