[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150228164353.GR3964@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 11:43:53 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Tim Hockin <thockin@...kin.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>,
lizefan@...wei.com, richard@....at, mingo@...hat.com,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] add nproc cgroup subsystem
Hello, Tim.
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:38:07AM -0800, Tim Hockin wrote:
> I know there is not much concern for legacy-system problems, but it is
> worth adding this case - there are systems that limit PIDs for other
> reasons, eg broken infrastructure that assumes PIDs fit in a short int,
> hypothetically. Given such a system, PIDs become precious and limiting
> them per job is important.
>
> My main point being that there are less obvious considerations in play than
> just memory usage.
Sure, there are those cases but it'd be unwise to hinge long term
decisions on them. It's hard to even argue 16bit pid in legacy code
as a significant contributing factor at this point. At any rate, it
seems that pid is a global resource which needs to be provisioned for
reasonable isolation which is a good reason to consider controlling it
via 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