linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 02/18] cgroup_pids: track maximum pids

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45e50dcb-7446-d203-de6e-0a59dc09a874@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:59:18 +0000
From:	Topi Miettinen <toiwoton@...il.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	"open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 02/18] cgroup_pids: track maximum pids

On 07/19/16 01:09, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 08:11:31PM +0000, Topi Miettinen wrote:
>> On 06/13/16 21:33, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 09:29:32PM +0000, Topi Miettinen wrote:
>>>> I used fork callback as I don't want to lower the watermark in all cases
>>>> where the charge can be lowered, so I'd update the watermark only when
>>>> the fork really happens.
>>>
>>> I don't think that would make a noticeable difference.  That's where
>>> we decide whether to grant fork or not after all and thus where the
>>> actual usage is.
>>
>> I tried using only charge functions, but then the result was too low.
>> With fork callback, the result was as expected.
> 
> Can you please elaborate in more details?

With the example systemd-timesyncd case, I was only getting 1 as the
highwatermark, but there were already two tasks.

-Topi