From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx165.postini.com [74.125.245.165]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 29C5B6B005A for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:31:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FEAFC5E.4050104@parallels.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:28:14 +0400 From: Glauber Costa MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Fork bomb limitation in memcg WAS: Re: [PATCH 00/11] kmem controller for memcg: stripped down version 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> In-Reply-To: <20120627122924.GD20638@somewhere.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Frederic Weisbecker 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 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 -- 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