From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail143.messagelabs.com (mail143.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BC79000BD for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 22:29:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by fxh17 with SMTP id 17so180172fxh.14 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:29:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1316393805-3005-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1316393805-3005-7-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 07:59:31 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] tcp buffer limitation: per-cgroup limit From: Balbir Singh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andi Kleen Cc: Glauber Costa , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paul@paulmenage.org, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, davem@davemloft.net, gthelen@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kirill@shutemov.name On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > Glauber Costa writes: > >> This patch uses the "tcp_max_mem" field of the kmem_cgroup to >> effectively control the amount of kernel memory pinned by a cgroup. >> >> We have to make sure that none of the memory pressure thresholds >> specified in the namespace are bigger than the current cgroup. > > I noticed that some other OS known by bash seem to have a rlimit per > process for this. Would that make sense too? Not sure how difficult > your infrastructure would be to extend to that. rlimit per process for tcp usage? Interesting, that reminds me, we need to revisit rlimit (RSS) at some point Balbir Singh -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org