> >Someone wrote:
> >> I'd like to see per user as well as per process limits for kernel
> >> commitment, address space commitment etc. Those are really needed
> >> for "big iron" machines and Linux is moving more and more into that
> >> area.
>
> "Per process" limits for anything under Linux are difficult to
> envisage in a world of multi-threaded processes. Currently, Linux has
> no kernel abstraction to distinguish the kernel's notion of a task
> (aka "thread") and the unix/user-level notion of a process. Limits
> applied to a given task in a process (conventionally adequate for all
> single-threaded processes) would not apply to other kernel threads
> created using clone(). Presto, any "per process" limits are
> circumvented.
That's why Alan suggested "per-user" limits being supported as well.
But to address the thread-accounting issue for the general (non-malicious)
case, how about a "CLONE_ACCOUNTING" flag?
Adam
-- You crucify all honesty \\Adam D. Bradley artdodge@cs.bu.edu No signs you see do you believe \\Boston University Computer Science And all your words just twist and turn\\ Grad Student and Linux Hacker Reviving just to crash and burn \\ <>< ---------> Why can't you listen as love screams everywhere? <--------
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/