[PATCH 00/10] cgroups: Task counter subsystem v6

[Glauber Costa]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:06:35 -0700
> Tim Hockin <thockin at hockin.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, __3 Oct 2011 21:07:02 +0200
>> > Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec at gmail.com> 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.
>>

In the end of the day, all cgroups are just a group of tasks. So I don't really
get the need to have a cgroup to control the number of tasks in the system.

Why don't we just allow all cgroups to have a limit on the number of
tasks it can hold?




-- 
Sent from my Atari.