On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:14:12 +0300
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org> wrote:
> > Strongly agree.  Nobody's interested in swap as such: it's just
> > secondary memory, where RAM is primary memory.  People want to
> > control memory as the sum of the two; and I expect they may also
> > want to control primary memory (all that the current memcg does)
> > within that.  I wonder if such nesting of limits fits easily
> > into cgroups or will be problematic.
> 
> This nesting would affect the res_couter abstraction, not the
> cgroup infrastructure. Current design of resource counters doesn't
> allow for such thing, but the extension is a couple-of-lines patch :)
> 
IMHO, keeping res_counter simple is better.

Is this kind of new entry in mem_cgroup not good ?
==
struct mem_cgroup {
	...
	struct res_counter	memory_limit.
	struct res_counter	swap_limit.
	..
}

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers