[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Fork bomb limitation in memcg WAS: Re: [PATCH 00/11] kmem controller for memcg: stripped down version
    On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 04:28:14PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
    > On 06/27/2012 04:29 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
    > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 01:29:04PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
    > >> On 06/27/2012 01:55 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > >>>> I can't speak for everybody here, but AFAIK, tracking the stack through
    > >>>> the memory it used, therefore using my proposed kmem controller, was an
    > >>>> idea that good quite a bit of traction with the memcg/memory people.
    > >>>> So here you have something that people already asked a lot for, in a
    > >>>> shape and interface that seem to be acceptable.
    > >>>
    > >>> mm, maybe. Kernel developers tend to look at code from the point of
    > >>> view "does it work as designed", "is it clean", "is it efficient", "do
    > >>> I understand it", etc. We often forget to step back and really
    > >>> consider whether or not it should be merged at all.
    > >>>
    > >>> I mean, unless the code is an explicit simplification, we should have
    > >>> a very strong bias towards "don't merge".
    > >>
    > >> Well, simplifications are welcome - this series itself was
    > >> simplified beyond what I thought initially possible through the
    > >> valuable comments
    > >> of other people.
    > >>
    > >> But of course, this adds more complexity to the kernel as a whole.
    > >> And this is true to every single new feature we may add, now or in
    > >> the
    > >> future.
    > >>
    > >> What I can tell you about this particular one, is that the justification
    > >> for it doesn't come out of nowhere, but from a rather real use case that
    > >> we support and maintain in OpenVZ and our line of products for years.
    > >
    > > Right and we really need a solution to protect against forkbombs in LXC.
    > Small correction: In containers. LXC is not the only one out there =p

    Sure. I was just speaking for the specific project I'm working on :)
    But I'm definetly interested in solutions that work for everyone in containers in
    general. And if Openvz is also interested in forkbombs protection that's even

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-06-27 15:21    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site