Re: [patch] mm: Fix SHM_HUGETLB to work with users in hugetlb_shm_group

[wli@movementarian.org]

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 01:25:29PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> This should be split into another patch (i.e. three in all). The
>> first patch allows users in thh shm_group to use huge pages. The
>> second that accounts for locked_shm properly. The third allows
>> users with a high enough locked rlimit to use shmget() with
>> hugepages. However, my feeling right now would be to ack 1,
>> re-reread 2 and nak 3.

I'm saying to ack all 3 for backward compatibility reasons, once
they're fixed up according to your other commentary.

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:08:51AM -0800, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> I totally agree.  In fact yesterday I was thinking of resending
> this patch to not account for shm memory when a user is not
> validated against rlimits (when he has CAP_IPC_LOCK or if he
> belongs to the sysctl_hugetlb_shm_group).
> As I see it there must be two parts:
> 1. Free ticket to CAP_IPC_LOCK and users belonging to
>    sysctl_hugetlb_shm_group
> 2. Patch to have users not having CAP_IPC_LOCK or
>    sysctl_hugetlb_shm_group to check against memlock
>    rlimits, and account it.  Also mark this deprecated in
>    feature-removal-schedule.txt
> Would this be OK?

This is the ideal scenario, except I thought the rlimit was destined
to replace the other methods, not vice-versa. I don't really mind
going this way, but maybe we should check in with the rlimit authors.


-- wli

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>