Re: [PATCH 00/10] cgroups: Task counter subsystem v6

[Andrew Morton <akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:06:35 -0700
Tim Hockin <thockin-Rl2oBbRerpQdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm00-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, __3 Oct 2011 21:07:02 +0200
> > Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> This contains minor changes, mostly documentation and changelog
> >> updates, off-case build fix, and a code optimization in
> >> res_counter_common_ancestor().
> >
> > I'd normally duck a patch series like this when we're at -rc8 and ask
> > for it to be resent late in -rc1. __But I was feeling frisky so I
> > grabbed this lot for a bit of testing and will sit on it until -rc1.
> >
> > I'm still not convinced that the kernel has a burning need for a "task
> > counter subsystem". __Someone convince me that we should merge this!
> 
> We have real (accidental) DoS situations which happen because we don't
> have this.  It usually takes the form of some library no re-joining
> threads.  We end up deploying a few apps linked against this library,
> and suddenly we're in trouble on a machine.  Except, this being
> Google, we're in trouble on a lot of machines.

This is a bit foggy.  I think you mean that machines are experiencing
accidental forkbombs?

> There may be other ways to cobble this sort of safety together, but
> they are less appealing for various reasons.  cgroups are how we
> control groups of related pids.
> 
> I'd really love to be able to use this.

Has it been confirmed that this implementation actually solves the
problem?  ie: tested a bit?

btw, Frederic told me that this version of the patchset had some
serious problem so it's on hold pending an upgrade, regardless of other
matters.