lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/10] cgroups: Task counter subsystem v8
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 19:50:01 +0100
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 08:31:26AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 04:37:40AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > Changes In this version:
> > >
> > > - Split 32/64 bits version of res_counter_write_u64() [1/10]
> > > Courtesy of Kirill A. Shutemov
> > >
> > > - Added Kirill's ack [8/10]
> > >
> > > - Added selftests [9/10], [10/10]
> > >
> > > Please consider for merging. At least two users want this feature:
> >
> > Has there been further discussion about this approach? IIRC, we
> > weren't sure whether this should be merged.
>
> The doubts I have noticed were:
>
> Q: Can't we rather focus on a global solution to fight forkbombs?
>
> If we can find a reliable solution that works in any case and that
> prevent from any forkbomb to impact the rest of the system then it
> may be an acceptable solution. But I'm not aware of such feature.
>
> Besides, another point in having this task counter is that we
> have a per container limit. Assuming all containers are running under
> the same user, we can protect against a container starving all others
> with a massive amount of processes close to the NR_PROC rlimit.
>
> Q: Can/should we implement a limitation on the number of "fork" as well?
> (as in https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/3/233 )
>
> I'm still not sure about why such a thing is needed. Is it really something we
> want? Why can't the task counter be used instead?
>
> I need more details from the author of this patch. But I doubt we can merge
> both subsystems, they have pretty different semantics.

What I struggle with is "is this feature useful enough to warrant
merging it"?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-01 20:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site