From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933866Ab1J1XaX (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:30:23 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:60686 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933780Ab1J1XaW (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:30:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:30:21 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Tim Hockin Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , LKML , Paul Menage , Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Aditya Kali , Oleg Nesterov , Kay Sievers , Tejun Heo , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Containers Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] cgroups: Task counter subsystem v6 Message-Id: <20111028163021.1ce61f8a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <1317668832-10784-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <20111004150111.e9337268.akpm00@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:06:35 -0700 Tim Hockin wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Mon, __3 Oct 2011 21:07:02 +0200 > > Frederic Weisbecker 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.