From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934208Ab1KCRAu (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:00:50 -0400 Received: from mail-vx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174]:57223 "EHLO mail-vx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934085Ab1KCRAt (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:00:49 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 18:00:42 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Andrew Morton , Tim Hockin Cc: 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: <20111103170038.GG8198@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <1317668832-10784-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <20111004150111.e9337268.akpm00@gmail.com> <20111028163021.1ce61f8a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111028163021.1ce61f8a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 04:30:21PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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? I'd like to hear about more details as well. > > > 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. Yep. The particular issue is https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/13/532 Li Zefan proposed a fix (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/17/26) which I'm currently reworking. But then I'd love it if you can test this subsystem to see if it really matches your needs, Tim. Thanks!