Re: [PATCH 00/10] cgroups: Task counter subsystem v8

[Tejun Heo]

On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 01:09:09PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance, but... what?  Use kernel memory limits as a proxy
> for process/thread counts?  That sounds terrible - I hope I am

Well, the argument was that process / thread counts were a poor and
unnecessary proxy for kernel memory consumption limit.  IIRC, Johannes
put it as (I'm paraphrasing) "you can't go to Fry's and buy 4k thread
worth of component".

> misunderstanding?  This task counter patch had several properties that
> mapped very well to what we want.
> 
> Is it dead in the water?

After some discussion, Frederic agreed that at least his use case can
be served well by kmemcg, maybe even better - IIRC it was container
fork bomb scenario, so you'll have to argue your way in why kmemcg
isn't a suitable solution for your use case if you wanna revive this.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/