From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 01:33:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 01:33:12 -0400 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:52489 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 01:33:01 -0400 From: Linus Torvalds Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 22:32:16 -0700 Message-Id: <200108150532.f7F5WGq01653@penguin.transmeta.com> To: mag@fbab.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.8 Resource leaks + limits Newsgroups: linux.dev.kernel In-Reply-To: <3ce801c12548$b7971750$020a0a0a@totalmef> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <3ce801c12548$b7971750$020a0a0a@totalmef> you write: > >Question: why isn't there a limit for global memory usage per user? Answer: because traditionally Linux (or UNIX) hasn't had a good and efficient way to have per-user statistics. This is why you mainly find per-process stuff in all the limits. Linux has had (for a while now) a "struct user" that is actually quickly accessible through a direct pointer off every process that is associated with that user, and we could (and _will_) start adding these kinds of limits. However, part of the problem is that because the limits haven't historically existed, there is also no accepted and nice way of setting the limits. Oh, well. Linus