[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170503005314.7oovr764r3e4elzd@ast-mbp>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 17:53:16 -0700
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc: kafai@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric@...it.org,
Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 1/4] samples/bpf: adjust rlimit RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
for traceex2, tracex3 and tracex4
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 02:31:50PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> Needed to adjust max locked memory RLIMIT_MEMLOCK for testing these bpf samples
> as these are using more and larger maps than can fit in distro default 64Kbytes limit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
...
> + struct rlimit r = {1024*1024, RLIM_INFINITY};
...
> + struct rlimit r = {1024*1024, RLIM_INFINITY};
why magic numbers?
All other samples do
struct rlimit r = {RLIM_INFINITY, RLIM_INFINITY};
> + if (setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &r)) {
> + perror("setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK)");
ip_tunnel.c test does:
perror("setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, RLIM_INFINITY)");
Few others do:
assert(!setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &r));
and the rest just:
setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &r);
We probalby need to move this to a helper.
> + struct rlimit r = {RLIM_INFINITY, RLIM_INFINITY};
here it's consistent :)
> + if (setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &r)) {
> + perror("setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, RLIM_INFINITY)");
but with different perror ?
Let's do a common helper for all?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists