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.

- memory-usage includes page-cache.
- memory-usage doesn't include hugepages.
- How to treat MAP_NORESERVE is depends on over-commit-memory type.
  how cgroup does ?
- shared memory will be conuted per mmap.


Thanks,
-Kame

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