From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932445AbbIYPjR (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:39:17 -0400 Received: from mail-yk0-f180.google.com ([209.85.160.180]:33949 "EHLO mail-yk0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756799AbbIYPjQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:39:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 11:39:12 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Aleksa Sarai Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: PIDs Controller Limit Message-ID: <20150925153912.GG4449@mtj.duckdns.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Aleksa. 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? Thanks. -- tejun