Hello, On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 03:57:46PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote: > I am not limited by kernel memory, I am limited by PIDs, and I need to > be able to manage them. memory.kmem.usage_in_bytes seems to be far > too noisy to be useful for this purpose. It may work fine for "just > stop a fork bomb" but not for any sort of finer-grained control.
So, why are you limited by PIDs other than the arcane / weird limitation that you have whereever that limitation is? > > If you think you can tilt it the other way, please feel free to try. > > Just because others caved, doesn't make it less of a hack. And I will > cave, too, because I don't have time to bang my head against a wall, > especially when I can see the remnants of other people who have tried. > > We'll work around it, or we'll hack around it, or we'll carry this > patch in our own tree and just grumble about ridiculous hacks every > time we have to forward port it. > > I was just hoping that things had worked themselves out in the last year. It's kinda weird getting this response, as I don't think it has been particularly walley. The arguments were pretty sound from what I recall and Frederic's use case was actually better covered by kmemcg, so where's the said wall? And I asked you why your use case is different and the only reason you gave me is some arbitrary PID limitation on whatever thing you're using, which you gotta agree is a pretty hard sell. So, if you think you have a valid case, please just explain it. Why go passive agressive on it? If you don't have a valid case for pushing it, yes, you'll have to hack around it - carry the patches in your tree, whatever, or better, fix the weird PID problem. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
