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, an
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
> 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
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 P
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 attempti
5 matches
Mail list logo
