From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <47CEAAB4.8070208@openvz.org> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:14:12 +0300 From: Pavel Emelyanov MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] cgroup swap subsystem References: <47CE36A9.3060204@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <47CE5AE2.2050303@openvz.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Daisuke Nishimura , containers@lists.osdl.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com List-ID: Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >> Daisuke Nishimura wrote: >>> Todo: >>> - rebase new kernel, and split into some patches. >>> - Merge with memory subsystem (if it would be better), or >>> remove dependency on CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_CONT if possible >>> (needs to make page_cgroup more generic one). >> Merge is a must IMHO. I can hardly imagine a situation in which >> someone would need these two separately. > > 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 :) > Hugh > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org