From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx190.postini.com [74.125.245.190]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C7576B005A for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:35:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: by yenr5 with SMTP id r5so1016855yen.14 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:35:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:35:47 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: Fork bomb limitation in memcg WAS: Re: [PATCH 00/11] kmem controller for memcg: stripped down version Message-ID: <20120627123544.GE20638@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <1340633728-12785-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <20120625162745.eabe4f03.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4FE9621D.2050002@parallels.com> <20120626145539.eeeab909.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4FEAD260.4000603@parallels.com> <20120627122924.GD20638@somewhere.redhat.com> <4FEAFC5E.4050104@parallels.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FEAFC5E.4050104@parallels.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Glauber Costa Cc: Andrew Morton , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Christoph Lameter , devel@openvz.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, Tejun Heo , Rik van Riel , Daniel Lezcano , Kay Sievers , Lennart Poettering , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Kir Kolyshkin On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 04:28:14PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 06/27/2012 04:29 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 01:29:04PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > >> On 06/27/2012 01:55 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: > >>>> I can't speak for everybody here, but AFAIK, tracking the stack through > >>>> the memory it used, therefore using my proposed kmem controller, was an > >>>> idea that good quite a bit of traction with the memcg/memory people. > >>>> So here you have something that people already asked a lot for, in a > >>>> shape and interface that seem to be acceptable. > >>> > >>> mm, maybe. Kernel developers tend to look at code from the point of > >>> view "does it work as designed", "is it clean", "is it efficient", "do > >>> I understand it", etc. We often forget to step back and really > >>> consider whether or not it should be merged at all. > >>> > >>> I mean, unless the code is an explicit simplification, we should have > >>> a very strong bias towards "don't merge". > >> > >> Well, simplifications are welcome - this series itself was > >> simplified beyond what I thought initially possible through the > >> valuable comments > >> of other people. > >> > >> But of course, this adds more complexity to the kernel as a whole. > >> And this is true to every single new feature we may add, now or in > >> the > >> future. > >> > >> What I can tell you about this particular one, is that the justification > >> for it doesn't come out of nowhere, but from a rather real use case that > >> we support and maintain in OpenVZ and our line of products for years. > > > > Right and we really need a solution to protect against forkbombs in LXC. > Small correction: In containers. LXC is not the only one out there =p Sure. I was just speaking for the specific project I'm working on :) But I'm definetly interested in solutions that work for everyone in containers in general. And if Openvz is also interested in forkbombs protection that's even better. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org