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 16:18:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20130401231824.GC2487@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1328067470-5980-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <20130401184617.GB31435@htj.dyndns.org> <20130401202943.GC31435@htj.dyndns.org> <20130401220309.GA2487@htj.dyndns.org> <20130401223500.GB2487@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=WQvvLliF3WRVi4j86xwXvgXCcgmN6Nh4ZQg5N4UNJkg=; b=ZxsuaV5b2vzmcROHg2I2Z5lAQQUGMCyWsgkRGJnL0DAcSwPtsv5qNT4qVL3k93NQO3 LLmfHgP5m7PMGQfCfmFwW20Lr+qEaCWPnn899t9SxTeUcZNzQVkOP6ZoiWmyfwtNsScy B6+VsrhPkDlL1ZkbrYXPp6HSlt0KXS/NTSoltyLWv0JIVJ2h5ukbLwlj+3Ktohvc/uE9 2oXwoOlxFf2e0XYM/RFFTw2oA4kK1iX6CaTmfwyhWky6B6CBeSqaEosiIfWN77OIoI1h o9trH4cY9m8lYQLjEfqF1vKZn5KA7OkLw/U3t/qwgcscoXo8t3f8ig+AL03AAtgvMbBn 5XGw== 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 Hello, On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 03:57:46PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote: > I am not limited by kernel memory, I am limited by PIDs, and I need to > be able to manage them. memory.kmem.usage_in_bytes seems to be far > too noisy to be useful for this purpose. It may work fine for "just > stop a fork bomb" but not for any sort of finer-grained control. So, why are you limited by PIDs other than the arcane / weird limitation that you have whereever that limitation is? > > If you think you can tilt it the other way, please feel free to try. > > Just because others caved, doesn't make it less of a hack. And I will > cave, too, because I don't have time to bang my head against a wall, > especially when I can see the remnants of other people who have tried. > > We'll work around it, or we'll hack around it, or we'll carry this > patch in our own tree and just grumble about ridiculous hacks every > time we have to forward port it. > > I was just hoping that things had worked themselves out in the last year. It's kinda weird getting this response, as I don't think it has been particularly walley. The arguments were pretty sound from what I recall and Frederic's use case was actually better covered by kmemcg, so where's the said wall? And I asked you why your use case is different and the only reason you gave me is some arbitrary PID limitation on whatever thing you're using, which you gotta agree is a pretty hard sell. So, if you think you have a valid case, please just explain it. Why go passive agressive on it? If you don't have a valid case for pushing it, yes, you'll have to hack around it - carry the patches in your tree, whatever, or better, fix the weird PID problem. -- tejun