Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1491277
| From | Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] perf: Move mlock accounting to ring buffer allocation |
| Date | 2016-09-26 14:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <slDw5-3SS-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <skxCq-3yR-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <skCsp-6Lq-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <skFgC-8uY-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <slzst-1vb-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <slA5b-1Xk-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:27:08AM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote: >> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes: >> > At which point we _should_ start failing fork(), which is a somewhat >> > unexpected, and undesirable side-effect. >> >> I'm not sure I see why we should fail fork() when we run out of pinned >> memory. > > Well, we cannot fully honour the inherit, what other option do we have? > Silently malfunctioning? That's far worse. We can still put a note there saying that we tried. The user will know to adjust their buffer size requirement or the RLIMIT_MEMLOCK. >> > Ideally we'd unpin the old buffers and repin the new buffers on context >> > switch, but that's impossible since faulting needs scheduling, >> > recursion, we loose. >> >> Or we can have per-cpu buffers for all user's tasks, record where each >> task starts and ends in each buffer and cut out only bits relevant to >> the task(s) that dump core. > > Which gets you the problem that when a task dumps core there might not > be any state in the buffer, because the previous task flushed it all out > :/ Well, there's going to be at list something that leads up to the core dump if this task is the last one to schedule in for this buffer. It's a bit more gambling, though. Regards, -- Alex
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] perf: Move mlock accounting to ring buffer allocation Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> - 2016-09-23 19:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] perf: Move mlock accounting to ring buffer allocation Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-23 22:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] perf: Move mlock accounting to ring buffer allocation Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com> - 2016-09-26 10:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] perf: Move mlock accounting to ring buffer allocation Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-26 11:10 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] perf: Move mlock accounting to ring buffer allocation Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com> - 2016-09-26 14:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] perf: Move mlock accounting to ring buffer allocation Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com> - 2016-09-26 18:20 +0200
csiph-web