KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> 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.
> ..
> }
I meant the same thing actually. By "nesting would affect" I
meant, that we might want to make res_counters hierarchical.
That would kill two birds with one stone - we will make a true
hierarchical memory accounting and let charging of two counters
with one call.
>
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
