Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1270381

Re: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit

From Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit
Date 2015-11-16 18:10 +0100
Message-ID <qvvrX-1EC-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (1 earlier) <qtj1U-6MH-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <qtjuX-6Yy-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <qtjOj-7kQ-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <qtnfc-Ye-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qv5Hd-20o-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On 2015-11-15 08:36, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
>>> If so, could you share little more insight on how that time measure
>>> outside of the cpu's cgroup cycles? Just so that its helpful to wider
>>> audience.
>>
>> Well, there are a number of things that I can think of that the kernel does
>> on behalf of processes that can consume processor time that isn't trivial to
>> account:
>>    * Updating timers on behalf of userspace processes (itimers or similar).
>>    * Sending certain kernel generated signals to processes (that is, stuff
>> generated by the kernel like SIGFPE, SIGSEGV, and so forth).
>>    * Queuing events from dnotify/inotify/fanotify.
>>    * TLB misses, page faults, and swapping.
>>    * Setting up new processes prior to them actually running.
>>    * Scheduling.
>> All of these are things that fork-bombs can and (other than TLB misses) do
>> exploit to bring a system down, and the cpu cgroup is by no means a magic
>> bullet to handle this.
>
> I feel like these are backed by different resources, and we should
> work on limiting those *at the source* in the context of a controller
> rather than just patching up the symptoms (too many forks causing
> issues), because these are symptoms of a larger issue IMO.
OK, what specific resources back each of the things that I mentioned? 
Other than setting up a new process (which in retrospect I realize 
should probably just be accounted as processor time for the parent), I 
can't really see much that most of these are backed by, other than 
processor time (and until someone demonstrates otherwise, I stand by my 
statement that they are non-trivial to account properly as processor time).

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit Max Kellermann <mk@cm4all.com> - 2015-11-10 15:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-11-10 16:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit Max Kellermann <mk@cm4all.com> - 2015-11-10 16:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-11-10 16:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit Max Kellermann <mk@cm4all.com> - 2015-11-10 18:10 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2015-11-10 18:30 +0100
          Re: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit Max Kellermann <mk@cm4all.com> - 2015-11-10 19:00 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com> - 2015-11-10 16:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 17:00 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit Parav Pandit <pandit.parav@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 17:20 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 21:00 +0100
          Re: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com> - 2015-11-15 14:40 +0100
            Re: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 18:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] cgroup_pids: add fork limit Max Kellermann <mk@cm4all.com> - 2015-11-10 17:10 +0100

csiph-web