[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151110170612.GA21582@rabbit.intern.cm-ag>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:06:12 +0100
From: Max Kellermann <mk@...all.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit
On 2015/11/10 16:44, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 04:37:46PM +0100, Max Kellermann wrote:
> > There's "cpu" which changes priority
>
> The cpu controller can limit both in terms of relative weight and
> absolute CPU cycle bandwidth.
No, Tejun, the "cpu" controller does not do what my feature does: like
I said, it only changes the priority, or let's rephrase (to account
for the "absolute CPU cycle bandwith" thing): it changes the amount of
CPU cycles a process gets every period.
But it does NOT put an upper limit on total consumed CPU cycles! It
will only slow down a frantic process, but it will not stop it.
Stopping it is what I want. Once process crosses the limits I
configured, there's no point in keeping it running.
You may disagree that the feature I implemented is useful, and you may
not want it merged, but do not say that I missed a kernel feature,
because that's not true.
The Linux kernel currently does not have a feature that can emulate
the fork limit that I implemented. Useful or not, it doesn't exist.
Max
--
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