Re: [RFC/PATCH] cgroup swap subsystem

[Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>]

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:14:12 +0300
> Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org> 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.

> 

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>