On 06/27/2012 04:29 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 01:29:04PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: >> On 06/27/2012 01:55 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: >>>> I can't speak for everybody here, but AFAIK, tracking the stack through >>>> the memory it used, therefore using my proposed kmem controller, was an >>>> idea that good quite a bit of traction with the memcg/memory people. >>>> So here you have something that people already asked a lot for, in a >>>> shape and interface that seem to be acceptable. >>> >>> mm, maybe. Kernel developers tend to look at code from the point of >>> view "does it work as designed", "is it clean", "is it efficient", "do >>> I understand it", etc. We often forget to step back and really >>> consider whether or not it should be merged at all. >>> >>> I mean, unless the code is an explicit simplification, we should have >>> a very strong bias towards "don't merge". >> >> Well, simplifications are welcome - this series itself was >> simplified beyond what I thought initially possible through the >> valuable comments >> of other people. >> >> But of course, this adds more complexity to the kernel as a whole. >> And this is true to every single new feature we may add, now or in >> the >> future. >> >> What I can tell you about this particular one, is that the justification >> for it doesn't come out of nowhere, but from a rather real use case that >> we support and maintain in OpenVZ and our line of products for years. > > Right and we really need a solution to protect against forkbombs in LXC. Small correction: In containers. LXC is not the only one out there =p -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>