[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit
On 2015-11-15 08:36, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
>>> If so, could you share little more insight on how that time measure
>>> outside of the cpu's cgroup cycles? Just so that its helpful to wider
>>> audience.
>> Well, there are a number of things that I can think of that the kernel does
>> on behalf of processes that can consume processor time that isn't trivial to
>> account:
>> * Updating timers on behalf of userspace processes (itimers or similar).
>> * Sending certain kernel generated signals to processes (that is, stuff
>> generated by the kernel like SIGFPE, SIGSEGV, and so forth).
>> * Queuing events from dnotify/inotify/fanotify.
>> * TLB misses, page faults, and swapping.
>> * Setting up new processes prior to them actually running.
>> * Scheduling.
>> All of these are things that fork-bombs can and (other than TLB misses) do
>> exploit to bring a system down, and the cpu cgroup is by no means a magic
>> bullet to handle this.
> I feel like these are backed by different resources, and we should
> work on limiting those *at the source* in the context of a controller
> rather than just patching up the symptoms (too many forks causing
> issues), because these are symptoms of a larger issue IMO.
OK, what specific resources back each of the things that I mentioned?
Other than setting up a new process (which in retrospect I realize
should probably just be accounted as processor time for the parent), I
can't really see much that most of these are backed by, other than
processor time (and until someone demonstrates otherwise, I stand by my
statement that they are non-trivial to account properly as processor time).

[unhandled content-type:application/pkcs7-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-16 18:21    [W:0.044 / U:0.368 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site