Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-135788-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 07:55:38 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/9] cgroup/pids: Separate semantics of
 pids.events related to pids.max
Message-ID: <ZhQvmnnxhiVo1duU@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20240405170548.15234-1-mkoutny@suse.com>
 <20240405170548.15234-3-mkoutny@suse.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20240405170548.15234-3-mkoutny@suse.com>

Hello,

On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 07:05:41PM +0200, Michal Koutn? wrote:
> Currently, when pids.max limit is breached in the hierarchy, the event
> is counted and reported in the cgroup where the forking task resides.
> 
> This decouples the limit and the notification caused by the limit making
> it hard to detect when the actual limit was effected.
> 
> Let's introduce new events:
> 	  max
> 		The number of times the limit of the cgroup was hit.
> 
> 	  max.imposed
> 		The number of times fork failed in the cgroup because of self
> 		or ancestor limit.

The whole series make sense to me. I'm not sure about max.imposed field
name. Maybe a name which clearly signfies rejection of forks would be
clearer? Johannes, what do you think?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun