Chris Wright wrote:

>* Matt Keenan (matthew.keenan@ntlworld.com) wrote:
>  
>
>>--- linux-2.6.11.7/mm/madvise.c 2005-04-12 15:58:30.000000000 +0100
>>+++ linux/mm/madvise.c  2005-06-19 17:20:56.000000000 +0100
>>@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ static long madvise_willneed(struct vm_a
>>                            unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>>{
>>       struct file *file = vma->vm_file;
>>+       struct task_struct *tsk = current;
>>    
>>
>
>Looks like you've got some tab/whitespace damage going on here.
>
>  
>
Damn mailer! I might have to go back to mutt.

>>       if (!file)
>>               return -EBADF;
>>@@ -70,6 +71,28 @@ static long madvise_willneed(struct vm_a
>>               end = vma->vm_end;
>>       end = ((end - vma->vm_start) >> PAGE_SHIFT) + vma->vm_pgoff;
>>
>>+       /*
>>+        * This code below checks to see if mapping the requested
>>+        * readahead would make the task's rss exceed the task's
>>+        * rlimit rss.
>>+        *
>>+        * This doesn't account for pages that may already be mapped
>>+        * due to readahead, but since this is merely a hint to the
>>+        * kernel no harm should be done, it won't unmap anything
>>+        * already mapped if it fails. N.B. This won't affect the
>>+        * kernel's internal automatic readahead which doesn't check
>>+        * (or honour) rlimit rss.
>>+        */
>>+
>>+       spin_lock(&tsk->mm->page_table_lock);
>>+       if (((max_sane_readahead(end-start) << PAGE_SHIFT) +
>>+           tsk->mm->_rss) > tsk->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_RSS].rlim_cur)
>>    
>>
>
>I doubt this one would overflow, but we recenly made changes in similar
>tests to use page count rather than byte count.  I belive this should
>use get_mm_counter().  Isn't _rss counting pages rather than bytes,
>so I think the math is off here.  Something like:
>
>	if ((max_sane_readahead(end - start) + get_mm_counter(tsk->mm, rss)) >
>	    tsk->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_RSS].rlim_cur >> PAGE_SHIFT)
>
>  
>
Ok, here is the patch again with the suggested fixes. I have attached 
the patch (yes yes i know!), that will probably screw up people's mail 
-> patch generators, but the whitespace issue should be fixed. Hopefully 
this is ok, I'm going to bang on it for an hour or so here to make sure.

Signed-off-by: Matthew Keenan <matthew.keenan@ntlworld.com>