From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d23relay03.au.ibm.com (d23relay03.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.234]) by e23smtp02.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m2BFxxiF010630 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:59:59 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by d23relay03.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m2BFxn9r1388588 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:59:49 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m2BFxm19027292 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:59:49 +1100 Message-ID: <47D6AC6A.1060404@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:29:38 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Make res_counter hierarchical References: <47D16004.7050204@openvz.org> <20080308134514.434f38f4.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <47D63FBC.1010805@openvz.org> <6599ad830803110157u71fe6c3cse125d0202610413b@mail.gmail.com> <20080311181325.c0bf6b90.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <6599ad830803110211u1cb48874l30aa75d21dc2b23@mail.gmail.com> <47D64E0A.3090907@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <6599ad830803110856j5333f032n2e26fb51111a839c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6599ad830803110856j5333f032n2e26fb51111a839c@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Paul Menage Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Pavel Emelyanov , Daisuke Nishimura , Linux Containers , Linux MM List-ID: Paul Menage wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Balbir Singh wrote: >> Paul Menage wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:13 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki >> > 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 -- 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