On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 16:46:26 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > Would be neat if randomized brk and setrlimit(RLIMIT_DATA, ...) > > > worked in a predictable way: > > this isn't a valid case afaics; even on "traditional x86" (before we > > changed the address space layout, or even today if you have an unlimited > > stack rlimit) this isn't going to work. applications really shouldn't > > use (s)brk() but malloc(); you have to be able to fall back to mmap > > regardless of what you do. > > I tend to agree here with Arjan. However it probably would make no harm to > make at least a little bit consisten behavior of setrlimit(), though it > has a little use in such cases. > > Sami, does the patch below work for you?
Thanks, Jiri, now RLIMIT_DATA works as expected. Using only RLIMIT_AS to limit processes' memory usage is not very easy. It includes also libraries mapped read-only, I have to check/modify the limits when I update/add libraries,... Amazingly, I found a patch which seems to be just what I need: http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=118402827803338&w=4 Seems like that is not going to -mm or mainstream... -- Do what you love because life is too short for anything else. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
