On Thu 23-06-22 09:55:33, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:07 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu 23-06-22 18:03:31, Vasily Averin wrote: > > > Dear Michal, > > > do you still have any concerns about this patch set? > > > > Yes, I do not think we have concluded this to be really necessary. IIRC > > Roman would like to see lingering cgroups addressed in not-so-distant > > future (http://lkml.kernel.org/r/Ypd2DW7id4M3KJJW@carbon) and we already > > have a limit for the number of cgroups in the tree. So why should we > > chase after allocations that correspond the cgroups and somehow try to > > cap their number via the memory consumption. This looks like something > > that will get out of sync eventually and it also doesn't seem like the > > best control to me (comparing to an explicit limit to prevent runaways). > > -- > > Let me give a counter argument to that. On a system running multiple > workloads, how can the admin come up with a sensible limit for the > number of cgroups? How is that any easier through memory consumption? Something that might change between kernel versions? Is it even possible to prevent from id depletion by the memory consumption? Any medium sized memcg can easily consume all the ids AFAICS. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
