From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] cgroups: Task counter subsystem v8 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 13:29:43 -0700 Message-ID: <20130401202943.GC31435@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1328067470-5980-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <20130401184617.GB31435@htj.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=lkSCDd8cLzwy2TYVELP7CT59cqVCHhK7Um2S87Mk3rw=; b=kYuONj9XkONYHChesOcuO9ejrwcamU+8hDG+XCdnAiDkMSZu6k+XD5T/+87pDwJbzm frVY499AkqKdmiVxmu6UuPrkcunMlpkof2C3W0oI7N/oM3D8ZziunwyOBxJmsRIA+kMx M4l6JE0XDb9MygK2jnn3zQG9hIXfYzPNxr5m2Ry12O2KkTrYgFsVGgwnoB3eX4x2BZXm Jjbt7Go9W2gLYt5Py/2K8r3+zna+EXjKZXFKKN3aeeZVoD1XjIMVT73e5s2dV84lGcxg wIB6Ourmor06x9PxhQQtAI1hZPrsdMc7JiAUi9yhLtyeKJXlFy3kXO8Suw9GxKxn+l6m UhPQ== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Tim Hockin Cc: Aditya Kali , Glauber Costa , Max Kellermann , Frederic Weisbecker , Paul Menage , Daniel J Walsh , LKML , Oleg Nesterov , Mandeep Singh Baines , Johannes Weiner , Cgroups , Andrew Morton , Containers On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 01:09:09PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote: > Pardon my ignorance, but... what? Use kernel memory limits as a proxy > for process/thread counts? That sounds terrible - I hope I am Well, the argument was that process / thread counts were a poor and unnecessary proxy for kernel memory consumption limit. IIRC, Johannes put it as (I'm paraphrasing) "you can't go to Fry's and buy 4k thread worth of component". > misunderstanding? This task counter patch had several properties that > mapped very well to what we want. > > Is it dead in the water? After some discussion, Frederic agreed that at least his use case can be served well by kmemcg, maybe even better - IIRC it was container fork bomb scenario, so you'll have to argue your way in why kmemcg isn't a suitable solution for your use case if you wanna revive this. Thanks. -- tejun