| Message ID | 20200727184506.2279656-32-guro@fb.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | BPF Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | bpf: switch to memcg-based memory accounting | expand |
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:24 PM Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> wrote: > > Since bpf is not using memlock rlimit for memory accounting, > there are no more reasons to bump the limit. > > Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> > --- > tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.c | 16 ---------------- > 1 file changed, 16 deletions(-) > This can go, I suppose, we still have a runqslower variant in BCC with this logic, to show an example on what/how to do this for kernels without this patch set applied. Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com> > diff --git a/tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.c b/tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.c > index d89715844952..a3380b53ce0c 100644 > --- a/tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.c > +++ b/tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.c > @@ -88,16 +88,6 @@ int libbpf_print_fn(enum libbpf_print_level level, > return vfprintf(stderr, format, args); > } > > -static int bump_memlock_rlimit(void) > -{ > - struct rlimit rlim_new = { > - .rlim_cur = RLIM_INFINITY, > - .rlim_max = RLIM_INFINITY, > - }; > - > - return setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &rlim_new); > -} > - > void handle_event(void *ctx, int cpu, void *data, __u32 data_sz) > { > const struct event *e = data; > @@ -134,12 +124,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > > libbpf_set_print(libbpf_print_fn); > > - err = bump_memlock_rlimit(); > - if (err) { > - fprintf(stderr, "failed to increase rlimit: %d", err); > - return 1; > - } > - > obj = runqslower_bpf__open(); > if (!obj) { > fprintf(stderr, "failed to open and/or load BPF object\n"); > -- > 2.26.2 >
diff --git a/tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.c b/tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.c index d89715844952..a3380b53ce0c 100644 --- a/tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.c +++ b/tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.c @@ -88,16 +88,6 @@ int libbpf_print_fn(enum libbpf_print_level level, return vfprintf(stderr, format, args); } -static int bump_memlock_rlimit(void) -{ - struct rlimit rlim_new = { - .rlim_cur = RLIM_INFINITY, - .rlim_max = RLIM_INFINITY, - }; - - return setrlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, &rlim_new); -} - void handle_event(void *ctx, int cpu, void *data, __u32 data_sz) { const struct event *e = data; @@ -134,12 +124,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) libbpf_set_print(libbpf_print_fn); - err = bump_memlock_rlimit(); - if (err) { - fprintf(stderr, "failed to increase rlimit: %d", err); - return 1; - } - obj = runqslower_bpf__open(); if (!obj) { fprintf(stderr, "failed to open and/or load BPF object\n");
Since bpf is not using memlock rlimit for memory accounting, there are no more reasons to bump the limit. Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com> --- tools/bpf/runqslower/runqslower.c | 16 ---------------- 1 file changed, 16 deletions(-)