Why the insistence that we manage something that REALLY IS a first-class concept (hey, it has it's own RLIMIT) as a side effect of something that doesn't quite capture what we want to achieve? Is there some specific technical reason why you think this is a bad idea? I would think, especially in a more unified hierarchy world, that more cgroup controllers with smaller sets of responsibility would make for more manageable code (within limits, obviously). On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue 29-04-14 13:03:53, 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. > > I was not the one who decided that the kmem extension of memory > controller should cover also the task number as a side effect but still > the decision sounds plausible to me because the kmem approach is more > generic. > > Btw. if this is a problem them please go ahead and continue the original > discussion (http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=133417075309923) with the > other people involved. > > I do not see any new arguments here, except that the kmem implementation > is not ready yet. > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs -- 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>