From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Walsh <dwalsh@redhat.com>,
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com>,
Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Merge task counter into memcg
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:42:24 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F878480.60505@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120412174155.GC13069@google.com>
(2012/04/13 2:41), Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Johannes.
> I'm still split on the issue.
>
> * #tasks as unit of accounting / limiting is well understood (or at
> least known). I think this holds the same to #open files, to a
> lesser extent. It means there are and will continue to be people
> wanting them. So, they have some value in familiarity - "but... I
> want to limit the resources consumed by tasks cuz that's what I
> know!" factor.
>
> * People could want counting and limiting #tasks or #open files
> without the overhead of tracking all memory resources. This stems
> from the same reason #tasks was used for this sort of things in the
> first place. Counting tasks or open files tends to be easier and
> cheaper than tracking all memory allocations.
>
> So, there's spectrum of solutions between merging task counter and
> just directing everyone to kmem without distinguishing task resource
> at all, and at the moment voices in my head are succeeding at making
> cases for both directions. What do you guys think about the above two
> issues?
>
To be honest, I doubt that task counter is unnecessary...memcg can catch
oom situation well. I often test 'make -j' under memcg.
To the questions
* It sounds like a 'ulimit' cgroup. How about overwriting
ulimit values via cgroup ? (sounds joke?) Then, overhead will be small but
I'm not sure it can be hierarchical and doesn't break userland.
If people wants to limit the number of tasks, I think interface should provide it
in the unit of objects. Then, I'm ok to have other subsystem for counting something.
fork-bomb's memory overhead can be prevent by memcg. What memcg cannot handle
is ulimit. If forkbomb exhausts all ulimit/tasks, the user cannot login.
So, having task-limit cgroup subsys for a sandbox will make sense in some situation.
In short, I don't think it's better to have task-counting and fd-counting in memcg.
It's kmem, but it's more than that, I think.
Please provide subsys like ulimit.
Thanks,
-Kame
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-13 1:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-11 18:57 [RFD] Merge task counter into memcg Frederic Weisbecker
2012-04-11 19:21 ` Glauber Costa
2012-04-12 11:19 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2012-04-12 0:56 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-04-12 11:32 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2012-04-12 11:43 ` Glauber Costa
2012-04-12 12:32 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-04-12 13:12 ` Glauber Costa
2012-04-12 15:30 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-04-12 16:38 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-12 17:04 ` Cgroup in a single hierarchy (Was: Re: [RFD] Merge task counter into memcg) Glauber Costa
2012-04-17 15:13 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-17 15:27 ` Glauber Costa
2012-04-12 17:13 ` [RFD] Merge task counter into memcg Glauber Costa
2012-04-12 17:23 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-04-12 17:41 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-12 17:53 ` Glauber Costa
2012-04-13 1:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [this message]
2012-04-13 1:50 ` Glauber Costa
2012-04-13 2:48 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-04-17 15:41 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-17 16:52 ` Glauber Costa
2012-04-18 6:51 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-04-18 7:53 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2012-04-18 8:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-04-18 9:12 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2012-04-18 10:39 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-04-18 11:00 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-04-12 16:54 ` Glauber Costa
2012-04-12 1:07 ` Johannes Weiner
2012-04-12 2:15 ` Glauber Costa
2012-04-12 3:26 ` Li Zefan
2012-04-12 14:55 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2012-04-12 16:34 ` Glauber Costa
2012-04-12 16:59 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2012-04-17 15:17 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-18 6:54 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2012-04-18 8:10 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2012-04-18 12:00 ` Glauber Costa
2012-04-12 4:00 ` Alexander Nikiforov
[not found] ` <4F86527C.2080507@samsung.com>
2012-04-17 1:09 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2012-04-17 6:45 ` Alexander Nikiforov
2012-04-17 15:23 ` Tejun Heo
2012-04-19 3:34 ` Alexander Nikiforov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F878480.60505@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=berrange@redhat.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dwalsh@redhat.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox