From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [RFD] Merge task counter into memcg Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:50:23 -0300 Message-ID: <4F87865F.5060701@parallels.com> References: <20120411185715.GA4317@somewhere.redhat.com> <4F862851.3040208@jp.fujitsu.com> <20120412113217.GB11455@somewhere.redhat.com> <4F86BFC6.2050400@parallels.com> <20120412123256.GI1787@cmpxchg.org> <4F86D4BD.1040305@parallels.com> <20120412153055.GL1787@cmpxchg.org> <20120412163825.GB13069@google.com> <20120412172309.GM1787@cmpxchg.org> <20120412174155.GC13069@google.com> <4F878480.60505@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4F878480.60505-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "Daniel P. Berrange" , Frederic Weisbecker , Containers , Daniel Walsh , Hugh Dickins , LKML , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , Cgroups , Andrew Morton On 04/12/2012 10:42 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > To be honest, I doubt that task counter is unnecessary...memcg can catch > oom situation well. I often test 'make -j' under memcg. > > 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. > Kame, You're talking about the memcg that is in the kernel today. I think the discussion is orbiting around how it is going to be once we start tracking kernel memory like the slab (for task_struct), or kernel stack pages. In those scenarios, a fork bomb will be stopped anyway, because it will need kernel memory it can't grab.