From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756207Ab1KCRQo (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:16:44 -0400 Received: from bender.cm4all.net ([87.106.27.49]:41199 "EHLO bender.cm4all.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751991Ab1KCRQn (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:16:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 18:16:45 +0100 From: Max Kellermann To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Tim Hockin Subject: Re: [PATCH] new cgroup controller "fork" Message-ID: <20111103171645.GA27887@rabbit.intern.cm-ag> References: <20111103162238.27609.11515.stgit@rabbit.intern.cm-ag> <20111103164302.GE8198@somewhere.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111103164302.GE8198@somewhere.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2011/11/03 17:43, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > Please have a look at the task counter subsystem: https://lwn.net/Articles/461462/ > > It's in the -mm tree. I'm glad to hear about another user who wants > this feature in cgroups. We need to hear about you and whether this > meets your requirements in order to get it merged upstream. Had a quick look at your patch set. No, it does not seem to meet my requirements. It limits the number of processes in a cgroup - that is also very useful, but is different from my controller. My controller limits the number of fork() calls, not the number of processes running at a time. I've been using it for 7 years to put an upper bound on CGI resource usage in a shared hosting environment at my employer (initially based on a proprietary cgroup-like subsystem I wrote, when cgroups were not available yet). Max