Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:45:33 +0200 | From | Jiri Slaby <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] posix-timers: limit the number of posix timers per process |
| |
On 08/31/2011 01:02 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:47:47 -0700 > Andi Kleen<ak@linux.intel.com> wrote: > >> >>> Yes, deployment for new rlimits is a big PITA. It would be sensible to >>> modify the shells to take some anonymous numeric argument, so you could >>> do >>> >>> ulimit 42 1000 >>> >>> to set rlimit number 42 if your shell version doesn't understand the >>> symbolic representation of more recent additions. Who do I call? >> >> I guess sending a patch to the bash maintainers? >> > > That would help ;) And all the other shells :( > > It would be worth going back and taking another look at the writable > /proc/<pid>/limits patches (http://lwn.net/Articles/365732/). Why > didn't that work get merged?
This turned out to be too heavy-weight. We ended up having prlimit64 syscall. I.e. most of the pull request was merged. But not the 2 patches for writable /proc/.../limits.
With that syscall we might augment coreutils (or better kernel/tools to be updated properly) by a tool such as `prlimit', I think. Actually something I had when I was testing the syscall: https://github.com/jirislaby/collected_sources/blob/master/lim/lim.c#L1
regards, -- js suse labs
| |