Hello, Tim. On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:38:07AM -0800, Tim Hockin wrote: > I know there is not much concern for legacy-system problems, but it is > worth adding this case - there are systems that limit PIDs for other > reasons, eg broken infrastructure that assumes PIDs fit in a short int, > hypothetically. Given such a system, PIDs become precious and limiting > them per job is important. > > My main point being that there are less obvious considerations in play than > just memory usage.
Sure, there are those cases but it'd be unwise to hinge long term decisions on them. It's hard to even argue 16bit pid in legacy code as a significant contributing factor at this point. At any rate, it seems that pid is a global resource which needs to be provisioned for reasonable isolation which is a good reason to consider controlling it via cgroups. Thanks. -- 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/
