Re: [PATCH -mm] cgroup: Fix task counter common ancestor logic

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:51:11 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue,  8 Nov 2011 16:21:10 +0100
> Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > To solve this, keep the original cgroup of each thread in the thread
> > group cached in the flex array and pass it to can_attach_task()/attach_task()
> > and cancel_attach_task() so that the correct common ancestor between the old
> > and new cgroup can be safely retrieved for each task.
> 
> OK, thanks.
> 
> We need to work out what to do with this patchset.  ie: should we merge
> it.  I'm not sure that the case has been made?
> 

My impression is positive....but as other guy proposed, I feel fork-limit
should be useful, too. It allows to limit or rate-limit the number of fork().
So, I wonder some fork-limit can be implemented in this task_counter cgroup.

> Let's please drag this thing onto the table and poke at it for a while.
> Probably everyone has forgotten everything so we'll need to start
> again, sorry.  Perhaps you can (re)start proceedings by telling us why
> it's useful to our users and why we should merge it?
> 
please ;)

> 
> Some mental notes:
> 
> Tim says it would be useful for the things he's doing but doesn't
> appear to have confirmed/tested that.
> 
> Kay has said that it would not be useful for his plumber's wishlist
> item, which is a shame.
> 
> I seem to recall complaining that it doesn't address the forkbomb issue
> for non-cgroups setups, so the forkbomb issue remains unaddressed.

For non-cgroup fork-bomb, I and Minchan proposed forkbomb-killer (in 
independent way). I stop it now but if someone has interests, I
recall it from grave.

Thanks,
-Kame
 






--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/