From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:13:31 -0800 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <528d08272b03179d5df28033fcd6f89b@brasstown.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: References: <0F748B67-FB11-464C-84FA-66B4E0B29918@9.offblast.org> <44900c0d4896622fa8a9411b05efe730@brasstown.quanstro.net> <7A132462-4747-471A-A4BF-D9381E38A4EA@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp> <4c37cf728d5b0e7ae4ebd3c2e0c2cee4@brasstown.quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] protection against resource exhaustion Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3b9ba290-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > > many of resource exhaustion come from careless programming. > > I would like such processes to be killed immediately. > > throwing up to broken state might be better. > > I prefer an option to plan9.ini that enable resrcwait(), because the call breaks > > traditional programming style and probably we need more time to have > > right solution. > > Not plan9.ini, as that's intel specific. But perhaps a global runtime switch to turn this on and off (something under /dev/cpu*?), and a corresponding switch in the /proc/*/ctl interface that would let individual processes say what's best for them? plan9.ini is used by all my machines that pxe boot, though the name is changed to /cfg/pxe/$ea. there are other config mechanisms, but they all rely on bootstrapping variables into #ec. we don't need to invent a new mechanism, even if we do not use plan9.ini. - erik