[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F8D9FC4.3080800@parallels.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:52:20 -0300
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
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
>> In short, I don't think it's better to have task-counting and fd-counting in memcg.
>> It's kmem, but it's more than that, I think.
>> Please provide subsys like ulimit.
>
> So, you think that while kmem would be enough to prevent fork-bombs,
> it would still make sense to limit in more traditional ways
> (ie. ulimit style object limits). Hmmm....
>
I personally think this is namespaces business, not cgroups.
If you have a process namespace, an interface that works to limit the
number of processes should keep working given the constraints you are
given.
What doesn't make sense, is to create a *new* interface to limit
something that doesn't really need to be limited, just because you
limited a similar resource before.
--
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