From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C3116B008A for ; Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:18:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.73]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o9P0IYTV030328 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:18:34 +0900 Received: from smail (m3 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0F4945DE4F for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:18:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.93]) by m3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D38E045DD75 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:18:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1F26E08002 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:18:33 +0900 (JST) Received: from m105.s.css.fujitsu.com (m105.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.105]) by s3.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C25E08001 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:18:33 +0900 (JST) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:13:04 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] nommu: add anonymous page memcg accounting Message-Id: <20101025091304.871c8a50.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <1287753968.2589.58.camel@iscandar.digidescorp.com> References: <1287664088-4483-1-git-send-email-steve@digidescorp.com> <20101022122010.793bebac.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <1287753968.2589.58.camel@iscandar.digidescorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: steve@digidescorp.com Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dhowells@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:26:08 -0500 "Steven J. Magnani" wrote: > On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 12:20 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > BTW, have you tried oom_notifier+NOMMU memory limit oom-killer ? > > It may be a chance to implement a custom OOM-Killer in userland on > > EMBEDED systems. > > No - for what I need (simple sandboxing) just running my 'problem' > process in a memory cgroup is sufficient. I might even be able to get > away with oom_kill_allocating_task and no cgroup, but since that would > allow dosfsck to run the system completely out of memory there's no > guarantee that it would be the one that pushes the system over the edge. > > What do you mean by "NOMMU memory limit"? (Is there some other way to > achieve the same functionality?) > I just meant memory cgroup for NOMMU. > I looked into David's initial suggestion of using ulimit to create a > sandbox but it seems that nommu.c doesn't respect RLIMIT_AS. When I can > find some time I'll try to cook up a patch for that. Hmm. I think fixing RLIMIT_AS is better. (but no nack to this patch.) Using memcg for _a_ program sounds like overkill... Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org