Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 00:06:12 -0400 From: Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@FreeBSD.org> To: Coleman Kane <cokane@cokane.org> Cc: mezz7@cox.net, imp@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mlock(2), unprivileged users, and RLIMIT_MEMLOCK Message-ID: <1208059572.26405.4.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> In-Reply-To: <1208052990.1305.3.camel@localhost> References: <1208027381.1327.31.camel@localhost> <1208028217.82222.32.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <1208028624.1327.41.camel@localhost> <1208030804.1360.5.camel@localhost> <1208032559.1424.3.camel@localhost> <1208052990.1305.3.camel@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-yuQAcprmdg5WMg1X9G9h Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 22:16 -0400, Coleman Kane wrote: > It turns out that in order to use some commands (such as ps, w, top, and > others), you'll need a memorylocked limit even higher. I have mine at > around 250 right now and so far it seems to be fine. If you don't do > this, then these programs will spin in an infinite loop attempting to > allocate some memory (which the system refuses). Yeah, as I said, quite a few sysctl handlers user vslock() which wires memory. Some of the bigger ones are the new procstat sysctls. I wonder how gnome-system-monitor and procstat work with a limited RLIMIT_MEMLOCK. Joe --=20 Joe Marcus Clarke FreeBSD GNOME Team :: gnome@FreeBSD.org FreeNode / #freebsd-gnome http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome --=-yuQAcprmdg5WMg1X9G9h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAkgBhq8ACgkQb2iPiv4Uz4csfwCePXvRkVn9fddWaJOD+YRzGIsG mrcAmwaKwGMZJcKLzLeTodyKa3cWV24D =9nai -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-yuQAcprmdg5WMg1X9G9h--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1208059572.26405.4.camel>