Re: [PATCH 00/10] cgroups: Task counter subsystem v8

[Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

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