From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752715Ab1I1DG3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:06:29 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:43739 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752071Ab1I1DG2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:06:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 05:06:23 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Balbir Singh Cc: Andi Kleen , 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 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] tcp buffer limitation: per-cgroup limit Message-ID: <20110928030623.GF7761@one.firstfloor.org> References: <1316393805-3005-1-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> <1316393805-3005-7-git-send-email-glommer@parallels.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 07:59:31AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > 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 I would love to have that for some situations! -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.