Re: PIDs Controller Limit

From: Nikolay Borisov
Date: Tue Sep 29 2015 - 02:14:03 EST




On 09/26/2015 02:11 AM, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:42:38AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
>>> Does it make sense for the PIDs controller to allow a user to set a
>>> limit of 0? Since we don't cancel attaches, a limit of 0 doesn't
>>> affect anything (nothing stops attaches, and you need to have a
>>> process in the PIDs cgroup in order for fork()s to be affected by the
>>> limit). So I think that attempting to set pid.limit to 0 should return
>>> an -EINVAL.
>>
>> I don't know. Why does it matter?
>
> Well, it might be confusing that a limit of `0` is not different from
> a limit of `1`. Especially since someone might think that a limit of
> `0` means "no processes AT ALL", which is wrong. Although, I guess
> they should've just RTFM'd in that case.

I personally would have parsed a value of 0 as "unlimited"

--
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/