lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] new cgroup controller "fork"
On 11/03/2011 06:13 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
> On 11/3/2011 3:25 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
>> On 11/03/2011 05:20 PM, Max Kellermann wrote:
>>> On 2011/11/03 20:03, Alan Cox<alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Sure - I'm just not seeing that a whole separate cgroup for it is
>>>> appropriate or a good plan. Anyone doing real resource management needs
>>>> the rest of the stuff anyway.
>>>
>>> Right. When I saw Frederic's controller today, my first thought was
>>> that one could move the fork limit code over into that controller. If
>>> we reach a consensus that this would be a good idea, and would have
>>> chances to get merged, I could probably take some time to refactor my
>>> code.
>>>
>>> Max
>> I'd advise you to take a step back and think if this is really needed.
>> As Alan pointed out, the really expensive resource here is already being
>> constrained by Frederic's controller.
>
> I think this really is a different knob that is nice to have as long as
> it doesn't cost much. It's a way to set a max lifespan in a way that
> isn't really addressed by the other controls. (I could absolutely be
> missing something.)
>
> I think Max explained the issue clearly enough.

He did, indeed.

> It doesn't matter that the fork itself is supposedly so cheap.
>
> It's still nice to have a way to say, you may not fork/die/fork/die/fork
> in a race.
>
> What's so unimaginable about having a process that you know needs a lot
> of cpu and ram or other resources to do it's job, and you expressly want
> to allow it to take as much of those resources as it can, but you know
> it has no need to fork, so if it forks, _that_ is the only indication of
> a problem, so you may only want to block it based on that.
>
> Sure many other processes would legitimately fork/die/fork/die a lot
> while never exceeding a few total concurrent tasks, and for them you
> would not want to set any such fork limit. So what?
>
As I said previously, he knows his use cases better than anyone else.
If a use case can be found in which the summation of cpu+task
controllers is not enough, and if this is implemented as an option to
the task controller, and does not make it:
1) confusing,
2) more expensive,

then I don't see why not we shouldn't take it.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-03 22:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans