On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:20:17 +0300 Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > 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. > > .. > > } > > I meant the same thing actually. By "nesting would affect" I > meant, that we might want to make res_counters hierarchical. > > That would kill two birds with one stone - we will make a true > hierarchical memory accounting and let charging of two counters > with one call. Hierarchical res_counter makes sense. Making it in simple/reasonable style will be our challenge. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers