But why do you need to add "lockout prevention" if it already
exists? With CFS' extremely efficient per-user-scheduling (hopefully
soon to be the default) there are only two forms of lockout by non-
root processes: (1) Running out of PIDs in the box's PID-space
(think tens or hundreds of thousands of processes), or (2) Swap-
storming the box to death. To put it bluntly trying to reserve free
PID slots is attacking the wrong end of the problem and your so
called "lockout prevention" could very easily ensure that 10 PIDs are
available even if the user has swapstormed the box with the PIDs he
does have.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-