Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:26:37 +0100 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM |
| |
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:16:50AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > >On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 07:56:02AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > >> 2) this is *not* only about scheduling. Realtime tasks need > >> mlockall() and/or mlock as well. even the man page for mlock > >> recognizes this, yet almost all the discussion here has focused on > >> scheduling. > > > >RLIMIT_MEMLOCK is your friend. > > rlimit_memlock limits the *amount* of memory that mlock() can be used > on, not whether mlock can be used. at least, thats my understanding of > the POSIX design for this. the man page and the source code for mlock > support make that reasonably clear.
eh no. It defaults to zero, but if you increase it for a specific user, that user is allowed to mlock more.
> > Fine, we'll continue to tell people to use "realtime" LSM for audio > work. The people this really affects probably won't use vanilla > kernels anyway.
that is so not a constructive way to make progress. The realtime LSM is the wrong concept. It's a hack to work around other design issues with linux. *THAT* is what makes it wrong. Not the fact that it wouldn't work (I believe it works, I don't think anyone doubts that much). If you are unwilling to even discuss fixing the underlying design issues then I'm scared that this issue will never come to any workable solution. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |