KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:46:58 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> Paul Menage wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:13 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
>>> <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> 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).
>> Some times end users want to set virtual limit == RSS limit, so that the cgroup
>> OOMs on cross the RSS limit.
>>
> I have no objection to adding virtual limit itself.
> (It can be considered as extended ulimit.)
> 
> But if you'd like to add relationship between virtual-limit/memory-usage-limit,
> please take care to make it clear that relationship is reaseonable.
> 

No, I don't want to add a relationship, just plain virtual memory limits and let
the system administrators determine what works for them.



-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers