On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:49:18PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 08:06:46PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:58:48AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > Can you please rebase the patchset on top of cgroup/for-3.3? > > > > Sure. But please note its fate is still under discussion. Whether > > we want it upstream is still a running debate. But I certainly > > need to rebase against your tree. > > I see. > > > > I primarily like the idea of being able to track process usage w/ cgroup > > > and enforce limits on it but hope that it could somehow integrate w/ > > > cgroup freezer. ie. trigger freezer if it goes over limit and let the > > > userland tool / administrator deal with the frozen cgroup. I'm > > > planning on extending cgroup freezer such that it supports recursive > > > freezing and killing of frozen tasks. If we can fit task counters > > > into that, we'll have general method of handling problematic cgroups - > > > freeze, notify userland and let it deal with it. > > > > Hmm, so you suggest a kernel trigger that freeze the cgroup when the > > task limit is reached? > > Yeah, something like that. I'm not really sure about how it would > actually work tho. > > > What about rather implementing register_event() for the tasks.usage such > > that the user can be notified using eventfd when the limit is reached. > > Then it would be up to the user to decide to freeze or any other thing. > > Sounds like a more generic solution. > > Maybe, the problem would be how to ensure that the userland manager > can respond fast enough (whatever that means...). Yeah that's part of the goal of the task counter: limit the spreading of the forkbomb soon enough such that the machine stays responsive and the admin can react accordingly. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
