2012/2/2 Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:51:07AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: >> 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"? > > The reason why I've been working on it is because we need this feature > (at least) for LXC. > > Two people from our teams have jumped onto the discussion to express > that they want this feature and why: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/13/309 > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/12/13/364 Ping? _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
