[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120417151753.GB32402@google.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 08:17:53 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Daniel Walsh <dwalsh@...hat.com>,
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@...hat.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Merge task counter into memcg
Hello, Frederic.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 06:59:27PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> I want:
>
> a) to prevent the forkbomb from going far enough to DDOS the machine
> b) to be able to kill that forkbomb once detected, in one go without race
> against concurrent forks.
>
> I think a) can work just fine with kernel stack limiting. I also need
> to be notified about the fact we reached the limit. And b) should
> be feasible with the help of the cgroup freezer.
kmem allocation fail after reaching the limit which in turn should
fail task creation. Isn't that the same effect as the task_counter as
implemented?
> > Is there anything for which you need to know exactly the number of
> > processes?
>
> No that's really about prevent/kill forkbomb as far as I'm concerned.
Hmm... so, accounting overhead aside, if the only purpose is
preventing the whole machine being brought down by a fork bomb, kmem
limiting is enough, right?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists