Balbir Singh wrote:
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:32:58 +0200
>> Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Provide distinct cgroup VM overcommit accounting and handling using the memory
>>> resource controller.
>>>
>> Could you explain the benefits of this even when we have memrlimit controller ?
>> (If unsure, see 2.6.26-rc5-mm1 and search memrlimit controller.)
>>
>> And this kind of virtual-address-handling things should be implemented on
>> memrlimit controller (means not on memory-resource-controller.).
>> It seems this patch doesn't need to handle page_group.
>>
>> Considering hierarchy, putting several kinds of features on one controller is
>> not good, I think. Balbir, how do you think ?
>>
> 
> I would tend to agree. With the memrlimit controller, can't we do this in user
> space now? Figure out the overcommit value and based on that setup the memrlimit?

I also agree with Balbir and Kamezawa. Separate controller for VM (i.e. vma-s
lengths) is more preferable, rather than yet another fancy feature on top of 
the existing rss one.

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