On 07/13/2010 03:34 AM, Nirmal Guhan wrote: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Daniel Lezcano<daniel.lezc...@free.fr> > wrote: > >> On 07/12/2010 06:25 PM, atp wrote: >> >>> Nirmal, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Per container/per cgroup resource tracking has not been implemented. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I think only the *tracking* has not been implemented. It would still >>>> be possible to configure resources per container using cgroup (cpuset, >>>> memory etc.) Please confirm. >>>> >>>> >>> Yes, resource constraint has been implemented. That is the main >>> purpose of control groups. The tracking of resource consumption by >>> control group (as a container has a control group associated with it) >>> has not been done. >>> >>> Apologies if I was unclear. As always this is based off my >>> understanding. Please correct me if I'm wrong. >>> >>> >> The process tracking is the cgroup itself. The different controllers are >> plugged on this framework, these are known as subsystems and they make use >> of the cgroup process tracking to assign, account, restrict some resources. >> >> The existing subsystems are: >> >> * physical and swap memory : assign an amount of physical memory >> * network traffic control : choose network traffic bandwidth and network >> priority between cgroups >> * cpuset : assign cpus (exclusive or not) >> * freezer : block all the processes of the container >> * cgroup scheduling : a "nice" at the cgroup level >> * and some accounting informations about the cpus and the memory used >> >> The container is tied with a cgroup, so for example if you assign a cgroup >> scheduling priority higher to another container, this one will be less >> responsive than the one competing with it. >> >> lxc gives a thin abstraction layer between the container and the cgroup, it >> is up to the user to know the container subsystems in order to assign the >> right values. That has the advantage to have the lxc code agnostic with the >> cgroup file system moving interface. >> >> The next subsystems and cgroup features are the io nice per cgroup and an >> event file to notify for example the memory has reached a limit. AFAICS it >> is for 2.6.35. >> >> Unfortunately, the cgroup like the proc fs are not container aware and >> several times people is complaining they don't understand why when they set >> the physical memory to 256MB via the cgroup, they don't see the same value >> in /proc/meminfo ? >> > I read this as the reporting is not virtualized for container but > limits will still apply per container. For instance I can configure > 256MB physical memory for container but it won't show up in meminfo > or free. The physical limit will still apply. Did I misread? >
No, that's correct. The memory will be limited for the container. Thanks -- Daniel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first _______________________________________________ Lxc-users mailing list Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
