Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:12:50 +0000 From: Tom Judge <tom@tomjudge.com> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Per Jail Memory Limits Message-ID: <4ACA4532.5000303@tomjudge.com> In-Reply-To: <20091005190934.GX2259@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <4ACA0549.7030404@tomjudge.com> <4ACA2E0F.5010800@elischer.org> <4ACA3146.9090402@tomjudge.com> <20091005190213.GV2259@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4ACA4391.6020607@tomjudge.com> <20091005190934.GX2259@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 07:05:53PM +0000, Tom Judge wrote: > >> Kostik Belousov wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 05:47:50PM +0000, Tom Judge wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I started to port this to 7.1 today: >>>> >>>> http://wiki.freebsd.org/JailResourceLimits >>>> >>>> >>>> What are the peoples opinions on this patch? >>>> >>>> >>> Since r194766, we have precise accounting for the anonymous memory, >>> both globally and per-uid. If current jails infrastructure allows to >>> set per-jail limits (and I suspect that it is), then you should >>> just match these two facilities. >>> >>> The seemingly problematic thing is processes changing their jails. >>> It can be done similar to how the uid accounting is done currently, >>> by remembering which jail was charged in corresponding vm map >>> entry and object. >>> >>> >> Did this get MFC'd to stable/7? >> > No, and never will be. > Could you possibly expand on the reasons why this will never be MFC'd? Thanks Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4ACA4532.5000303>