[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200728121342.GD40195@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 09:13:42 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 35/35] perf: don't touch RLIMIT_MEMLOCK
Em Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 11:09:43PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko escreveu:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:21 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@...com> wrote:
> >
> > Since bpf stopped using memlock rlimit to limit the memory usage,
> > there is no more reason for perf to alter its own limit.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
> > ---
>
> Cc'd Armaldo, but I'm guessing it's a similar situation that latest
> perf might be running on older kernel and should keep working.
Yes, please leave it as is, the latest perf should continue working with
older kernels, so if there is a way to figure out if the kernel running
is one where BPF doesn't use memlock rlimit for that purpose, then in
those cases we shouldn't use it.
- Arnaldo
> > tools/perf/builtin-trace.c | 10 ----------
> > tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c | 6 ------
> > tools/perf/util/Build | 1 -
> > tools/perf/util/rlimit.c | 29 -----------------------------
> > tools/perf/util/rlimit.h | 6 ------
> > 5 files changed, 52 deletions(-)
> > delete mode 100644 tools/perf/util/rlimit.c
> > delete mode 100644 tools/perf/util/rlimit.h
> >
>
> [...]
--
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists