Re: [PATCH, RFC] mm: Implement RLIMIT_RSS

2013-06-13 Thread Jörn Engel
On Thu, 13 June 2013 17:57:32 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > It means you already know the max rss of the application in advance > so you can use taskstats's hiwater_rss if you don't need to catch > the moment which rss is over the limit. I would like to catch the very moment. Just for my

Re: [PATCH, RFC] mm: Implement RLIMIT_RSS

2013-06-13 Thread Minchan Kim
Hey Jörn, On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 05:53:20PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote: > On Tue, 11 June 2013 17:16:01 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:29:21PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote: > > > I've seen a couple of instances where people try to impose a vsize > > > limit simply because

Re: [PATCH, RFC] mm: Implement RLIMIT_RSS

2013-06-13 Thread Minchan Kim
Hey Jörn, On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 05:53:20PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote: On Tue, 11 June 2013 17:16:01 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:29:21PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote: I've seen a couple of instances where people try to impose a vsize limit simply because there is

Re: [PATCH, RFC] mm: Implement RLIMIT_RSS

2013-06-13 Thread Jörn Engel
On Thu, 13 June 2013 17:57:32 +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: It means you already know the max rss of the application in advance so you can use taskstats's hiwater_rss if you don't need to catch the moment which rss is over the limit. I would like to catch the very moment. Just for my particular

Re: [PATCH, RFC] mm: Implement RLIMIT_RSS

2013-06-11 Thread Jörn Engel
On Tue, 11 June 2013 17:16:01 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:29:21PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote: > > I've seen a couple of instances where people try to impose a vsize > > limit simply because there is no rss limit in Linux. The vsize limit > > is a horrible approximation

Re: [PATCH, RFC] mm: Implement RLIMIT_RSS

2013-06-11 Thread Johannes Weiner
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:29:21PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote: > I've seen a couple of instances where people try to impose a vsize > limit simply because there is no rss limit in Linux. The vsize limit > is a horrible approximation and even this patch seems to be an > improvement. > > Would there

[PATCH, RFC] mm: Implement RLIMIT_RSS

2013-06-11 Thread Jörn Engel
I've seen a couple of instances where people try to impose a vsize limit simply because there is no rss limit in Linux. The vsize limit is a horrible approximation and even this patch seems to be an improvement. Would there be strong opposition to actually supporting RLIMIT_RSS? Jörn -- It's

[PATCH, RFC] mm: Implement RLIMIT_RSS

2013-06-11 Thread Jörn Engel
I've seen a couple of instances where people try to impose a vsize limit simply because there is no rss limit in Linux. The vsize limit is a horrible approximation and even this patch seems to be an improvement. Would there be strong opposition to actually supporting RLIMIT_RSS? Jörn -- It's

Re: [PATCH, RFC] mm: Implement RLIMIT_RSS

2013-06-11 Thread Johannes Weiner
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:29:21PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote: I've seen a couple of instances where people try to impose a vsize limit simply because there is no rss limit in Linux. The vsize limit is a horrible approximation and even this patch seems to be an improvement. Would there be

Re: [PATCH, RFC] mm: Implement RLIMIT_RSS

2013-06-11 Thread Jörn Engel
On Tue, 11 June 2013 17:16:01 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:29:21PM -0400, Jörn Engel wrote: I've seen a couple of instances where people try to impose a vsize limit simply because there is no rss limit in Linux. The vsize limit is a horrible approximation and