Paul Menage wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:16 AM, 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).
>
> Ah, from this should I assume that you're talking about virtual
> address space limits, not virtual memory limits?
>
> My comment above was referring to Pavel's proposal to limit total
> virtual memory (RAM + swap) for a cgroup, and then limit swap as a
> subset of that, which basically makes it impossible to limit the RAM
> usage of cgroups properly if you also want to allow swap usage.
>
> Virtual address space limits are somewhat orthogonal to that.
>
Yes, I was referring to Virtual address limits (along the lines of RLIMIT_AS). I
guess it's just confusing terminology. I have patches for Virtual address
limits. I should send them out soon.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
