Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:13:25 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Patch to protect process from pageout killing Message-ID: <XFMail.20030326121325.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200303260858.37039.wes@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 26-Mar-2003 Wes Peters wrote: > 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. I mean that you should be setting P_PROTECTED in fork() based on the inherited rlimit's since otherwise the value of the rlimit is out of sync with the P_PROTECTED flag. Hence a bug. However, since non- inheritance is the desired behavior, it is also a feature, hence "feature" bug. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20030326121325.jhb>