From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268035AbUHFAzT (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:55:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268037AbUHFAzT (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:55:19 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:46010 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268035AbUHFAzM (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:55:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 17:53:34 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Rik van Riel Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] RSS ulimit enforcement for 2.6.8 Message-Id: <20040805175334.47f3054b.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20040805173650.4e7a8405.akpm@osdl.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > If the current patch isn't effective enough, we may want > > > to add more code. However, we may want to try the simplest > > > possible approach first. > > > > How do we know whether it is effective enough? How do we define this? > > Good question. I guess our usual answer is "throw it out there > and wait for somebody to show up with a workload that needs more". > > If you want I could add a bit more code proactively, but how do > we find out whether it's really needed ? Good question. What I'm groping for here is some definition of what we actually want the feature to _do_. Once we have that, and have suitably argued about it, we can then go off and see if the patch actually does it.