* PIDs Controller Limit
@ 2015-09-23 23:42 Aleksa Sarai
2015-09-25 15:39 ` Tejun Heo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Aleksa Sarai @ 2015-09-23 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tejun Heo; +Cc: linux-kernel, cgroups
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.
--
Aleksa Sarai (cyphar)
www.cyphar.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: PIDs Controller Limit
2015-09-23 23:42 PIDs Controller Limit Aleksa Sarai
@ 2015-09-25 15:39 ` Tejun Heo
2015-09-25 23:11 ` Aleksa Sarai
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tejun Heo @ 2015-09-25 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Aleksa Sarai; +Cc: linux-kernel, cgroups
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: PIDs Controller Limit
2015-09-25 15:39 ` Tejun Heo
@ 2015-09-25 23:11 ` Aleksa Sarai
2015-09-28 15:51 ` Tejun Heo
2015-09-29 6:13 ` Nikolay Borisov
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Aleksa Sarai @ 2015-09-25 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tejun Heo; +Cc: linux-kernel, cgroups
> 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.
--
Aleksa Sarai (cyphar)
www.cyphar.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: PIDs Controller Limit
2015-09-25 23:11 ` Aleksa Sarai
@ 2015-09-28 15:51 ` Tejun Heo
2015-09-29 6:13 ` Nikolay Borisov
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tejun Heo @ 2015-09-28 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Aleksa Sarai; +Cc: linux-kernel, cgroups
Hello,
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 09:11:02AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> 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 really don't think it matters.
Thanks.
--
tejun
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: PIDs Controller Limit
2015-09-25 23:11 ` Aleksa Sarai
2015-09-28 15:51 ` Tejun Heo
@ 2015-09-29 6:13 ` Nikolay Borisov
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Nikolay Borisov @ 2015-09-29 6:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Aleksa Sarai, Tejun Heo; +Cc: linux-kernel, cgroups
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"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-09-29 6:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-09-23 23:42 PIDs Controller Limit Aleksa Sarai
2015-09-25 15:39 ` Tejun Heo
2015-09-25 23:11 ` Aleksa Sarai
2015-09-28 15:51 ` Tejun Heo
2015-09-29 6:13 ` Nikolay Borisov
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome