Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751650AbVIZP5D (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:57:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751652AbVIZP5D (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:57:03 -0400 Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([24.172.12.4]:1287 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751650AbVIZP5B (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:57:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:56:44 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: Al Boldi Cc: Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Resource limits Message-ID: <20050926155644.GC2100@hmsreliant.homelinux.net> References: <200509251712.42302.a1426z@gawab.com> <200509261718.17658.a1426z@gawab.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200509261718.17658.a1426z@gawab.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2004 Lines: 55 On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 05:18:17PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > 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. > What exactly is it that you're worried about here? Do you have a particular concern that a process won't be able to fork or create a thread? Resources that can be allocated to user space processes always run the risk that their allocation will not succede. Its up to the application to deal with that. > 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? > ulimits are per-user. Neil > -- > 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/ -- /*************************************************** *Neil Horman *Software Engineer *gpg keyid: 1024D / 0x92A74FA1 - http://pgp.mit.edu ***************************************************/ - 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/