Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:35:47 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        devel@openvz.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>,
        Lennart Poettering <lennart@poettering.net>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Kir Kolyshkin <kir@parallels.com>
Subject: Re: Fork bomb limitation in memcg WAS: Re: [PATCH 00/11] kmem
 controller for memcg: stripped down version
Message-ID: <20120627123544.GE20638@somewhere.redhat.com>
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>
 <4FEAFC5E.4050104@parallels.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4FEAFC5E.4050104@parallels.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2241
Lines: 44

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 04:28:14PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> 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

Sure. I was just speaking for the specific project I'm working on :)
But I'm definetly interested in solutions that work for everyone in containers in
general. And if Openvz is also interested in forkbombs protection that's even
better.
--
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/