Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759413Ab3DAXSb (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:18:31 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.220.54]:49144 "EHLO mail-pa0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757586Ab3DAXS3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:18:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 16:18:24 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Tim Hockin Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , Andrew Morton , Li Zefan , LKML , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Paul Menage , Johannes Weiner , Aditya Kali , Oleg Nesterov , Containers , Glauber Costa , Cgroups , Daniel J Walsh , "Daniel P. Berrange" , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Max Kellermann , Mandeep Singh Baines Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] cgroups: Task counter subsystem v8 Message-ID: <20130401231824.GC2487@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1328067470-5980-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <20130401184617.GB31435@htj.dyndns.org> <20130401202943.GC31435@htj.dyndns.org> <20130401220309.GA2487@htj.dyndns.org> <20130401223500.GB2487@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 Content-Length: 1958 Lines: 42 Hello, On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 03:57:46PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote: > I am not limited by kernel memory, I am limited by PIDs, and I need to > be able to manage them. memory.kmem.usage_in_bytes seems to be far > too noisy to be useful for this purpose. It may work fine for "just > stop a fork bomb" but not for any sort of finer-grained control. So, why are you limited by PIDs other than the arcane / weird limitation that you have whereever that limitation is? > > If you think you can tilt it the other way, please feel free to try. > > Just because others caved, doesn't make it less of a hack. And I will > cave, too, because I don't have time to bang my head against a wall, > especially when I can see the remnants of other people who have tried. > > We'll work around it, or we'll hack around it, or we'll carry this > patch in our own tree and just grumble about ridiculous hacks every > time we have to forward port it. > > I was just hoping that things had worked themselves out in the last year. It's kinda weird getting this response, as I don't think it has been particularly walley. The arguments were pretty sound from what I recall and Frederic's use case was actually better covered by kmemcg, so where's the said wall? And I asked you why your use case is different and the only reason you gave me is some arbitrary PID limitation on whatever thing you're using, which you gotta agree is a pretty hard sell. So, if you think you have a valid case, please just explain it. Why go passive agressive on it? If you don't have a valid case for pushing it, yes, you'll have to hack around it - carry the patches in your tree, whatever, or better, fix the weird PID problem. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/