PERFORCE change 186633 for review
Edward Tomasz Napierala
trasz at FreeBSD.org
Sat Dec 4 19:50:23 UTC 2010
Change 186633 by trasz at trasz_victim on 2010/12/04 19:49:49
Affected files ...
.. //depot/projects/soc2009/trasz_limits/TODO#32 edit
==== //depot/projects/soc2009/trasz_limits/TODO#32 (text+ko) ====
@@ -25,9 +25,15 @@
- - inheritance: different resources need to sum things up differently
- - per-jail containers
- - per-jail resource limits
+ - Consider replacing proc pointer with thread pointer in rusage_add(9) et al.
+ In most cases caller uses 'td->td_proc' anyway, and passing thread would
+ allow the HRL code to send a signal to the offending thread instead of the
+ offending process.
+ - Do we need separate container hierarchy, or should we just drop it and use
+ - Remove CONTAINERS #ifdefs.
@@ -73,8 +79,8 @@
2. Replace single container_lock with individual per-container mutexes.
- RUSAGE_NOFILE accounts for size of file descriptor table, rather than the number
- of file descriptors. This shouldn't be a problem, but might be worth remembering
+ of file descriptors. This shouldn't be a problem, but might be worth keeping
+ in mind.
- We should have a limit for the number of files that were mmapped and then closed,
and remain mapped in memory.
@@ -88,7 +94,7 @@
- Bring back per-group limits.
- - Some things need to be accounted for per-euid, and some per-egid. Geez.
+ - Some things need to be accounted for per-euid, and some per-ruid. Geez.
- In maxproc limit, make sure the 'p' argument is a child process. Otherwise,
if one adds rule with 'sig*' action, the signal will be sent to the parent
More information about the p4-projects