Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> 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.
> 

Yep! it seems I totally miss the memrlimit controller. I was trying to
implement pretty the same functionalities, using a different approach.
However, I agree that a separate controller seems to be a better
solution.

Thank you all for pointing in the right direction. I'll test memrlimit
controller and give a feedback.

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