Paul Menage wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:16 AM, 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).
> 
> Ah, from this should I assume that you're talking about virtual
> address space limits, not virtual memory limits?
> 
> My comment above was referring to Pavel's proposal to limit total
> virtual memory (RAM + swap) for a cgroup, and then limit swap as a
> subset of that, which basically makes it impossible to limit the RAM
> usage of cgroups properly if you also want to allow swap usage.
> 
> Virtual address space limits are somewhat orthogonal to that.
> 


Yes, I was referring to Virtual address limits (along the lines of RLIMIT_AS). I
guess it's just confusing terminology. I have patches for Virtual address
limits. I should send them out soon.


-- 
	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