From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 01:56:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 01:56:14 -0400 Received: from cc361913-a.flrtn1.occa.home.com ([24.0.193.171]:22145 "EHLO mirai.cx") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 01:56:05 -0400 Message-ID: <3B7A0F01.DC4CAE4@pobox.com> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 22:56:17 -0700 From: J Sloan Organization: J S Concepts X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.9-pre4 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmaynor@iceland.oit.gatech.edu CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.8 Resource leaks + limits In-Reply-To: <3ce801c12548$b7971750$020a0a0a@totalmef> <200108150532.f7F5WGq01653@penguin.transmeta.com> <20010815014328.A15395@iceland.oit.gatech.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org dmaynor@iceland.oit.gatech.edu wrote: > > This is why you mainly find per-process stuff in all the limits. > > > > Linux has had (for a while now) a "struct user" that is actually quickly > > accessible through a direct pointer off every process that is associated > > with that user, and we could (and _will_) start adding these kinds of > > limits. However, part of the problem is that because the limits haven't > > historically existed, there is also no accepted and nice way of setting > > the limits. > So when you do impose this, where will it be setable, will there be a flat file in /etc > like solaris, or compile time for the kernel? Eh? Why wouldn't it be like most parameters in Linux, e.g. dynamically adjustable via a sysctl or /proc? IMHO, of course... cu jjs