From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frederic Weisbecker Subject: Re: [RFD] Merge task counter into memcg Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:53:00 +0200 Message-ID: References: <4F862851.3040208@jp.fujitsu.com> <20120412113217.GB11455@somewhere.redhat.com> <4F86BFC6.2050400@parallels.com> <20120412123256.GI1787@cmpxchg.org> <4F86D4BD.1040305@parallels.com> <20120412153055.GL1787@cmpxchg.org> <20120412163825.GB13069@google.com> <20120412172309.GM1787@cmpxchg.org> <20120412174155.GC13069@google.com> <4F878480.60505@jp.fujitsu.com> <20120417154117.GE32402@google.com> <4F8D9FC4.3080800@parallels.com> <4F8E646B.1020807@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4F8E646B.1020807-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "Daniel P. Berrange" , Containers , Daniel Walsh , Hugh Dickins , LKML , Johannes Weiner , Tejun Heo , Cgroups , Andrew Morton List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org 2012/4/18 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki : > (2012/04/18 1:52), Glauber Costa wrote: > >> >>>> In short, I don't think it's better to have task-counting and fd-count= ing in memcg. >>>> It's kmem, but it's more than that, I think. >>>> Please provide subsys like ulimit. >>> >>> So, you think that while kmem would be enough to prevent fork-bombs, >>> it would still make sense to limit in more traditional ways >>> (ie. ulimit style object limits). =A0Hmmm.... >>> >> >> I personally think this is namespaces business, not cgroups. >> If you have a process namespace, an interface that works to limit the >> number of processes should keep working given the constraints you are >> given. >> >> What doesn't make sense, is to create a *new* interface to limit >> something that doesn't really need to be limited, just because you >> limited a similar resource before. >> > > > Ok, limitiing forkbomb is unnecessary. ulimit+namespace should work. > What we need is user-id namespace, isn't it ? If we have that, ulimit > works enough fine, no overheads. I have considered using NR_PROC rlimit on top of user namespaces to fight forkbombs inside a container. ie: one user namespace per container with its own rlimit. But it doesn't work because we can have multiuser apps running in a single container.