On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 13:33 +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > This can
> > be quite confusing. I am still not sure whether we should mix the two
> > things together. If somebody wants to limit the kernel memory he has to
> > touch the other limit anyway. Do you have a strong reason to mix the
> > user and kernel counters?
>
> This is funny, because the first opposition I found to this work was
> "Why would anyone want to limit it separately?" =p
>
> It seems that a quite common use case is to have a container with a
> unified view of "memory" that it can use the way he likes, be it with
> kernel memory, or user memory. I believe those people would be happy to
> just silently account kernel memory to user memory, or at the most have
> a switch to enable it.
>
> What gets clear from this back and forth, is that there are people
> interested in both use cases.
Haven't we already had this discussion during the Prague get together?
We discussed the use cases and finally agreed to separate accounting for
k and then k+u mem because that satisfies both the Google and Parallels
cases. No-one was overjoyed by k and k+u but no-one had a better
suggestion ... is there a better way of doing this that everyone can
agree to?
We do need to get this nailed down because it's the foundation of the
patch series.
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
