On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 19:50:01 +0100 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 08:31:26AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 04:37:40AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > Changes In this version: > > > > > > - Split 32/64 bits version of res_counter_write_u64() [1/10] > > > Courtesy of Kirill A. Shutemov > > > > > > - Added Kirill's ack [8/10] > > > > > > - Added selftests [9/10], [10/10] > > > > > > Please consider for merging. At least two users want this feature: > > > > Has there been further discussion about this approach? IIRC, we > > weren't sure whether this should be merged. > > The doubts I have noticed were: > > Q: Can't we rather focus on a global solution to fight forkbombs? > > If we can find a reliable solution that works in any case and that > prevent from any forkbomb to impact the rest of the system then it > may be an acceptable solution. But I'm not aware of such feature. > > Besides, another point in having this task counter is that we > have a per container limit. Assuming all containers are running under > the same user, we can protect against a container starving all others > with a massive amount of processes close to the NR_PROC rlimit. > > Q: Can/should we implement a limitation on the number of "fork" as well? > (as in https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/3/233 ) > > I'm still not sure about why such a thing is needed. Is it really something we > want? Why can't the task counter be used instead? > > I need more details from the author of this patch. But I doubt we can merge > both subsystems, they have pretty different semantics. What I struggle with is "is this feature useful enough to warrant merging it"? _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
