On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:46:58 +0530 Balbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Menage wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:13 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> or remove all relationship among counters of *different* type of > >> resources. > >> user-land-daemon will do enough jobs. > >> > > > > Yes, that would be my preferred choice, if people agree that > > hierarchically limiting overall virtual memory isn't useful. (I don't > > think I have a use for it myself). > > > > Virtual limits are very useful. I have a patch ready to send out. > They limit the amount of paging a cgroup can do (virtual limit - RSS limit). > Some times end users want to set virtual limit == RSS limit, so that the > cgroup > OOMs on cross the RSS limit. > I have no objection to adding virtual limit itself. (It can be considered as extended ulimit.) But if you'd like to add relationship between virtual-limit/memory-usage-limit, please take care to make it clear that relationship is reaseonable. - memory-usage includes page-cache. - memory-usage doesn't include hugepages. - How to treat MAP_NORESERVE is depends on over-commit-memory type. how cgroup does ? - shared memory will be conuted per mmap. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
