Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] add nproc cgroup subsystem

[Tejun Heo]

Hello, Tim.

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:38:07AM -0800, Tim Hockin wrote:
> I know there is not much concern for legacy-system problems, but it is
> worth adding this case - there are systems that limit PIDs for other
> reasons, eg broken infrastructure that assumes PIDs fit in a short int,
> hypothetically.  Given such a system, PIDs become precious and limiting
> them per job is important.
>
> My main point being that there are less obvious considerations in play than
> just memory usage.

Sure, there are those cases but it'd be unwise to hinge long term
decisions on them.  It's hard to even argue 16bit pid in legacy code
as a significant contributing factor at this point.  At any rate, it
seems that pid is a global resource which needs to be provisioned for
reasonable isolation which is a good reason to consider controlling it
via cgroups.

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/