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