Re: [RFC] sys_setrlimit() in 2.6.16
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 10:47:31 +0100
* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
This has to be considered a bug. The spec certainly implies that a
limit of zero should be honoured and, probably more importantly,
that's how it works in 2.4.
Problem is, the code in there all assumes that an it_prof_expires of
zero means "it was never set", and changing that (add a yes-it-has
flag?) would be less than trivial.
So I think the path of least resistance here is to just convert the
caller's zero seconds into one second. That in fact gives the same
behaviour as 2.4: you get whacked after one second or more CPU time.
(This is not a final patch - that revolting expression in
sys_setrlimit() needs help first).
your approach looks good to me. It doesnt make much sense anyway to have
a task whacked right after startup ... so adding a common-sense "the
user must have meant some really small value" thing doesnt look all that
wrong.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [RFC] sys_setrlimit() in 2.6.16
- From: Cliff Wickman
- Re: [RFC] sys_setrlimit() in 2.6.16
- From: Andrew Morton
- [RFC] sys_setrlimit() in 2.6.16
- Prev by Date: Re: [BUG] kernel 2.6.15.4: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
- Next by Date: [patch 2/6] lightweight robust futexes: core
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] sys_setrlimit() in 2.6.16
- Next by thread: Problem: Possible deadlock for 2.4 SMP systems
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|