From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] cgroups: add a pids subsystem Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 23:47:20 -0400 Message-ID: <20150312034720.GE25944@htj.duckdns.org> References: <1424660891-12719-1-git-send-email-cyphar@cyphar.com> <1425606357-6337-1-git-send-email-cyphar@cyphar.com> <1425606357-6337-3-git-send-email-cyphar@cyphar.com> <20150309033405.GE13283@htj.duckdns.org> <54FDED43.4050908@gmail.com> <54FED651.6040100@gmail.com> <55005BAC.9060405@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=5nr2JIK1itOiPWQcVxV0+8TUCZuYFARX2LD8ZkdcioM=; b=Mn+RL3GfnEqsuGFPAx3uksQ9t0JWj9wp0UqTZc53RdqJ7f/kKbw3SQ5ztWJXYWNAhO LjXCjFfc6uwok18ALp/wINnNSDL9IqWq7wy1SA20buhj4YhwY7GBRW0Yng1jjDQTeF9B GYSeW8C6f1wYLWHm4LqAMmKnWHo64cnnKvxnJIeDmlVawuzhqEIrOvuBus7I443ShaZU HzkoJX86nCfXQs3h9N+Qy3dVUA1+Kr+nKoylbLlBJEihUGsEc2Y/rjunfQusnbxqxQhO T1emou+sFlhf433fosvgvGBJ6kmQB0xmHDm5E0PiYQYwfwpNvDGFrvfHqVfSwwMaSC5j 90Yw== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55005BAC.9060405@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Austin S Hemmelgarn Cc: Aleksa Sarai , lizefan@huawei.com, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, richard@nod.at, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:13:48AM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > I did not necessarily word this very clearly. What I meant is that > /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max is essentially an external limiting factor that > caps the total number of pids that can be under the root cgroup and it's > children, not that the cgroup in any way payed attention to it. It might be > useful to be able to just disable the sysctl option and set the value > through the root cgroup, solely or consistency, although such usage isn't > something I would consider essential in any way. Unless there's a compelling reason to implement it, I don't think it's a good idea to add it. The reasons against it have been mentioned a couple times in the thread and AFAICS none is being refuted. Thanks. -- tejun