[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1505191508530.4225@nanos>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 15:11:34 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
lizefan@...wei.com, mingo@...hat.com, richard@....at,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 8/8] cgroup: implement the PIDs subsystem
On Tue, 19 May 2015, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> >> However, it should be noted that organisational operations (adding and
> >> removing tasks from a PIDs hierarchy) will *not* be prevented.
> >
> > This is how you spell: broken controller.
>
> This has been discussed before. Organisational operations (i.e.
> attaching to a cgroup) are not to be blocked by a cgroup controller in
> the unified hierarchy. You simply can't escape out of a parent
> cgroup's limit through attaching to a child cgroup (because you will
> attach either before the fork checks against the cgroup [in which case
> the child's limit is followed -- which means you also follow the
> parent's limit] or after it checks [which means you'll hit the
> parent's limit and won't be able to fork]).
That's complete and utter nonsense. What has the parent limit to do
with the overflow of the child limit?
parent: limit 100 usecnt 80
child: limit 10 usecnt 10
So moving anything into child is violating the constraints and has to
be refused. Anything else is just dirty hackery.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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