From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934106Ab1KCRuq (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:50:46 -0400 Received: from mx2.parallels.com ([64.131.90.16]:49391 "EHLO mx2.parallels.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933174Ab1KCRup (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:50:45 -0400 Message-ID: <4EB2D451.4010607@parallels.com> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 15:50:09 -0200 From: Glauber Costa User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Max Kellermann CC: Frederic Weisbecker , Tim Hockin , , , Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] new cgroup controller "fork" References: <20111103162238.27609.11515.stgit@rabbit.intern.cm-ag> <20111103164302.GE8198@somewhere.redhat.com> <20111103171645.GA27887@rabbit.intern.cm-ag> <4EB2CEB2.7050800@parallels.com> <20111103174809.GA28108@rabbit.intern.cm-ag> In-Reply-To: <20111103174809.GA28108@rabbit.intern.cm-ag> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [201.82.130.234] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/03/2011 03:48 PM, Max Kellermann wrote: > On 2011/11/03 18:26, Glauber Costa wrote: >> On 11/03/2011 03:16 PM, Max Kellermann wrote: >>> but is different from my controller. >>> >> How so? > > Once the "remaining" counter has reached zero, no further forks are > possible, no matter how many processes are left. It is a fork > counter, not a process counter. > > Let's say: Frederic's controller counts "things" that exists > (processes), and my controller counts "verbs" or "ations" (fork()). > > Max That still seems to be up to admin. If no processes are removed from the cgroup or included in the cgroup, the only action/verb the counter is concerned about is to fork. Under this circumstance, both seem equivalent from my PoV.