Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932148AbVIZOpH (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:45:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932149AbVIZOpH (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:45:07 -0400 Received: from [212.76.81.238] ([212.76.81.238]:3332 "EHLO raad.intranet") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932148AbVIZOpF (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:45:05 -0400 From: Al Boldi To: Rik van Riel , Neil Horman Subject: Re: Resource limits Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:18:17 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200509251712.42302.a1426z@gawab.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200509261718.17658.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1101 Lines: 34 Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Al Boldi wrote: > > Resource limits in Linux, when available, are currently very limited. > > > > i.e.: > > Too many process forks and your system may crash. > > This can be capped with threads-max, but may lead you into a lock-out. > > > > What is needed is a soft, hard, and a special emergency limit that would > > allow you to use the resource for a limited time to circumvent a > > lock-out. > > > > Would this be difficult to implement? > > How would you reclaim the resource after that limited time is > over ? Kill processes? That's one way, but really, the issue needs some deep thought. Leaving Linux exposed to a lock-out is rather frightening. Neil Horman wrote: > Whats insufficient about the per-user limits that can be imposed by the > ulimit syscall? Are they system wide or per-user? -- Al - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/