From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [git pull] pull request for writable limits for 2.6.34-rc0
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:45:54 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100321014554.GA2079@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1003201207160.18017@i5.linux-foundation.org>
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 12:20:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >
> > please pull the writable limits tree below.
>
> Ok, sorry for the long delay - I spent 5 days at two separate intel events
> over the last two weeks, which ended up sucking up a lot of my spare time
> that I normally use to try to judge the merge window stuff. As a result, I
> pulled mainly code that wasn't new (ie existing models), or that was
> "obviously independent" (liek the new ceph filesystem) and didn't have any
> contentious issues.
>
> As a result, I ended up looking at the writable limits only today.
>
> And I'm not entirely happy. For example, I absolutely _detest_ seeing new
> compat code for a feature that was just added. My immediate reaction is
> "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?".
> It's really annoying.
>
> Why doesn't the new set/getprlimit things just take a pointer to a
> well-defined pair of 64-bit values? Why is there any compat cruft at all
> there? That is beyond insane. Just make the user level interface work
> right in the first place, instead of adding crazy compat crap. This is
> _not_ a legacy interface.
>
I won't speak to this yet, its been awhile since I looked at it, but I don't
recall there being any compat code in place (although it went through several
revisions, so I may be thinking of the wrong version).
> I'd also like to hear more about actual uses. Does _any_ other Unix-like
> system actually implement this writable limits thing? Who is asking for
> it?
>
The main request that I've gotten in regards to this feature request is for
admins who want to make limits adjustments to processes without the need to
restart them. The specific example I've been given is the desire to increase
the number of open files a database process can hold without needing to restart
the database.
Neil
> Linus
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-21 1:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-07 16:52 [PULL] pull request for writable limits for 2.6.33-rc1 Jiri Slaby
2009-12-09 19:25 ` [PULL] pull request for writable limits for 2.6.33-rc0 Jiri Slaby
2009-12-11 11:05 ` [git pull -resend] " Jiri Slaby
2009-12-23 9:40 ` Jiri Slaby
2010-01-02 21:40 ` [PULL] " Jiri Kosina
2010-01-02 21:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-01-04 21:59 ` Jiri Kosina
2010-01-04 10:47 ` [PULL] pull request for limits FIXES for 2.6.33-rc Jiri Slaby
2010-01-04 10:48 ` [PATCH 1/3] SECURITY: selinux, fix update_rlimit_cpu parameter Jiri Slaby
2010-01-05 15:50 ` David Howells
2010-01-04 10:48 ` [PATCH 2/3] resource: move kernel function inside __KERNEL__ Jiri Slaby
2010-01-04 10:48 ` [PATCH 3/3] resource: add helpers for fetching rlimits Jiri Slaby
2010-03-05 16:53 ` [git pull] pull request for writable limits for 2.6.34-rc0 Jiri Slaby
2010-03-20 19:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-03-21 1:45 ` Neil Horman [this message]
2010-03-21 6:06 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2010-03-21 18:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-03-24 17:02 ` Jiri Slaby
2010-04-14 9:31 ` Jiri Slaby
2010-05-05 12:12 ` Resource limits interface proposal [was: pull request for writable limits] Jiri Slaby
2010-05-05 15:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-05-06 6:39 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2010-05-06 15:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 01/11] rlimits: security, add task_struct to setrlimit Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 02/11] rlimits: add task_struct to update_rlimit_cpu Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 03/11] rlimits: make sure ->rlim_max never grows in sys_setrlimit Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 04/11] rlimits: split sys_setrlimit Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 05/11] rlimits: allow setrlimit to non-current tasks Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 06/11] rlimits: do security check under task_lock Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 07/11] rlimits: add rlimit64 structure Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 08/11] rlimits: redo do_setrlimit to more generic do_prlimit Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 09/11] rlimits: switch getrlimit to do_prlimit Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 9:02 ` [PATCH v2 09/11] rlimits: switch more rlimit syscalls " Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 9:05 ` Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH " Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 10/11] rlimits: implement prlimit64 syscall Jiri Slaby
2010-05-07 8:55 ` [PATCH 11/11] unistd: add __NR_prlimit64 syscall numbers Jiri Slaby
2010-05-06 15:46 ` Resource limits interface proposal [was: pull request for writable limits] Jiri Slaby
2010-03-24 17:04 ` [git pull] pull request for writable limits for 2.6.34-rc0 Jiri Slaby
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100321014554.GA2079@localhost.localdomain \
--to=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=jirislaby@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox