[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F8E646B.1020807@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:51:23 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, 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
(2012/04/18 1:52), Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
Ok, limitiing forkbomb is unnecessary. ulimit+namespace should work.
What we need is user-id namespace, isn't it ? If we have that, ulimit
works enough fine, no overheads.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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