On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Blaisorblade wrote: > And the RLIMIT_RSS is totally unused - I bet Rik's patch didn't manage > to go in, or it's me missing something? It never went into the kernel, because Andrew did not find a workload where the code provided benefits. Sounds fair to me ;) -- All Rights Reversed - 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/
- References:
- [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3
- From: Blaisorblade <[email protected]>
- Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3
- From: Blaisorblade <[email protected]>
- Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3
- From: Hugh Dickins <[email protected]>
- Remap_file_pages, RSS limits, security implications (was: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3)
- From: Blaisorblade <[email protected]>
- [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch] stop inotify from sending random DELETE_SELF event under load
- Next by Date: Re: Lost Ticks
- Previous by thread: Remap_file_pages, RSS limits, security implications (was: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3)
- Next by thread: Re: Remap_file_pages, RSS limits, security implications (was: Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] [patch 0/18] remap_file_pages protection support (for UML), try 3)
- Index(es):
