From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Mar 25 8:35: 0 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0060537B404 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:34:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail11.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.211]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 661E843F3F for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:34:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 18913 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2003 16:34:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail11.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 25 Mar 2003 16:34:56 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2PGYoOv096194; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:34:50 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.4 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <200303241805.38175.wes@softweyr.com> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 11:34:50 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Wes Peters Subject: Re: Patch to protect process from pageout killing Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Poul-Henning Kamp X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-19.5 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REPLY_WITH_QUOTES autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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(). -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message