On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:14:12 +0300
Pavel Emelyanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Strongly agree. Nobody's interested in swap as such: it's just
> > secondary memory, where RAM is primary memory. People want to
> > control memory as the sum of the two; and I expect they may also
> > want to control primary memory (all that the current memcg does)
> > within that. I wonder if such nesting of limits fits easily
> > into cgroups or will be problematic.
>
> This nesting would affect the res_couter abstraction, not the
> cgroup infrastructure. Current design of resource counters doesn't
> allow for such thing, but the extension is a couple-of-lines patch :)
>
IMHO, keeping res_counter simple is better.
Is this kind of new entry in mem_cgroup not good ?
==
struct mem_cgroup {
...
struct res_counter memory_limit.
struct res_counter swap_limit.
..
}
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
