[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140721124958.GD12921@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:49:58 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] memcg: export knobs for the defaul cgroup hierarchy
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 04:03:32PM +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> I think it's all about how we're going to use memory cgroups. If we're
> going to use them for application containers, there's simply no such
> problem, because we only want to isolate a potentially dangerous process
> group from the rest of the system. If we want to start a fully
> virtualized OS inside a container, then we certainly need a kind of
For shell environments, ulimit is a much better specific protection
mechanism against fork bombs and process-granular OOM killers would
behave mostly equivalently during fork bombing to the way it'd behave
in the host environment w/o cgroups. I'm having a hard time seeing
why this would need any special treatment from cgroups.
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