Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:23:02 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/11 v5] cgroups: Task counter subsystem |
| |
On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 01:11:20 +0200 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> No functional changes. Only documentation and comments added. > Checkpatch.pl fixes, etc... >
What is the actual rationale for merging all of this? For this amount of complexity I do think we need to see significant end-user benefits. But all I'm seeing in this patchset is
This is a step to be able to isolate a bit more a cgroup against the rest of the system and limit the global impact of a fork bomb inside a given cgroup.
which is really very thin.
Also, the changelogs don't appear to mention any testing results for the fork-bomb-killer feature.
Is the fork-bomb-killer feature realistically useful? As I understand it, the problem with a fork-bomb is that it causes a huge swapstorm while creating tasks very quickly. The latency impact of the swapping makes it very hard to regain control of the system so you can stop the forking. So to be effective, this feature would need to limit the swapping? Or something. More substantiation, please.
Also, what is the relationship between this and RLIMIT_NPROC? Given that we have user namespaces, does that give us per-user, per-namespace, per-container rlimits? If it doesn't, should it? Will it? If it does/will, how duplicative will that be?
| |