Re: [RFD] Merge task counter into memcg

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, KAMEZAWA.

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:42:24AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > So, there's spectrum of solutions between merging task counter and
> > just directing everyone to kmem without distinguishing task resource
> > at all, and at the moment voices in my head are succeeding at making
> > cases for both directions.  What do you guys think about the above two
> > issues?
> 
> 
> To be honest, I doubt that task counter is unnecessary...memcg can catch
> oom situation well. I often test 'make -j' under memcg.

Heh, the double negation is confusing me.  Were you trying to say that
task_counter is necessary or was it the other way around?

> To the questions
> *   It sounds like a 'ulimit' cgroup. How about overwriting
>     ulimit values via cgroup ? (sounds joke?) Then, overhead will be small but
>     I'm not sure it can be hierarchical and doesn't break userland.
> 
>     If people wants to limit the number of tasks, I think interface should provide it
>     in the unit of objects. Then, I'm ok to have other subsystem for counting something.
>     fork-bomb's memory overhead can be prevent by memcg. What memcg cannot handle
>     is ulimit. If forkbomb exhausts all ulimit/tasks, the user cannot login.
>     So, having task-limit cgroup subsys for a sandbox will make sense in some situation.
> 
> In short, I don't think it's better to have task-counting and fd-counting in memcg.
> It's kmem, but it's more than that, I think.
> Please provide subsys like ulimit.

So, you think that while kmem would be enough to prevent fork-bombs,
it would still make sense to limit in more traditional ways
(ie. ulimit style object limits).  Hmmm....

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/