Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 08:58:37 -0800 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Patch to protect process from pageout killing Message-ID: <200303260858.37039.wes@softweyr.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030325113450.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <XFMail.20030325113450.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 25 March 2003 08:34, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 25-Mar-2003 Wes Peters wrote:
> > On Monday 24 March 2003 08:36, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >> Also, doesn't this result in the flag being inerited with fork() and
> >> thereby negating the effect you are seeking for squid ?
> >
> > I looked through all the places in kern_fork.c where p2->p_flag gets
> > set and didn't see anything that looked like it would inherit
> > P_PROTECTED from p1->p_flag. Did I miss something? I'm obviously a
> > bit of a neophyte in this part of the kernel.
>
> rlimit's are inherited. However, due to a "feature" bug in your patch,
> the P_PROTECTED flag doesn't get turned on when the rlimit is inherited
> in fork1().
feature bug? If you mean the fact that the setting for P_PROTECTED isn't
stored in the rlimit, that was intentional. rlimits are inherited and I
specifically didn't want that behavior, similar to p_cpulimit. I still
agree resource limits are not an ideal interface to use for this, I'll
look further.
--
Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200303260858.37039.wes>