On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:14:12 +0300 Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers