From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752372Ab1H3WGd (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:06:33 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:35703 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751859Ab1H3WGb (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:06:31 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,352,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="43786136" Message-ID: <4E5D5EE6.3070708@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:06:30 -0700 From: Andi Kleen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] posix-timers: limit the number of posix timers per process References: <1314661157-22173-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <1314661157-22173-2-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <20110830144407.acdae071.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20110830144407.acdae071.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Sorry, it should be an rlimit from day one, IMO. > Ok. > Partly because rlimits are a better implementation. The reason I went with a sysctl is that rlimits are more intrusive for user space, requires special tools or patching bash. > Partly because once rlimits are added, the /proc knob no longer has any > sane behaviour. Does it only modify /sbin/init? Does it do a global > process walk, modifying all threads? There's no way to modify: you would need to kill the process or randomly take timers away. The limit only applies to new timers. -Andi