Re: Protection against container fork bombs [WAS: Re: memcg with kmem limit doesn't recover after disk i/o causes limit to be hit]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 04/29/2014 04:03 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Michal Hocko (mhocko@xxxxxxx):
On Mon 28-04-14 18:00:25, Serge Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Dwight Engen (dwight.engen@xxxxxxxxxx):
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:07:28 +0300
Marian Marinov <mm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 04/22/2014 11:05 PM, Richard Davies wrote:
Dwight Engen wrote:
Richard Davies wrote:
Vladimir Davydov wrote:
In short, kmem limiting for memory cgroups is currently broken.
Do not use it. We are working on making it usable though.
...
What is the best mechanism available today, until kmem limits
mature?

RLIMIT_NPROC exists but is per-user, not per-container.

Perhaps there is an up-to-date task counter patchset or similar?

I updated Frederic's task counter patches and included Max
Kellermann's fork limiter here:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.containers/27212

I can send you a more recent patchset (against 3.13.10) if you
would find it useful.

Yes please, I would be interested in that. Ideally even against
3.14.1 if you have that too.

Dwight, do you have these patches in any public repo?

I would like to test them also.

Hi Marian, I put the patches against 3.13.11 and 3.14.1 up at:

git://github.com/dwengen/linux.git cpuacct-task-limit-3.13
git://github.com/dwengen/linux.git cpuacct-task-limit-3.14

Thanks, Dwight.  FWIW I'm agreed with Tim, Dwight, Richard, and Marian
that a task limit would be a proper cgroup extension, and specifically
that approximating that with a kmem limit is not a reasonable substitute.

The current state of the kmem limit, which is improving a lot thanks to
Vladimir, is not a reason for a new extension/controller. We are just
not yet there.

It has nothing to do with the state of the limit.  I simply don't
believe that emulating RLIMIT_NPROC by controlling stack size is a
good idea.

-serge

I think that having a limit on the number of processes allowed in a cgroup is a lot better then relaying on the kmem limit.
The problem that task-limit tries to solve is degradation of system performance caused by too many processes in a certain cgroup. I'm currently testing the patches with 3.12.16.

-hackman


_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers




[Index of Archives]     [Cgroups]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux