Paul Menage wrote: > On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:38 AM, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hierarchical res_counter makes sense. >> > Making it in simple/reasonable style will be our challenge. >> >> I have this in my TODO list. Since this is not so urgent, then if you >> don't mind I can prepare the patches next week - after I set the git >> tree up. This change doesn't seem that big. >> > > The change that you're referring to is allowing a cgroup to have a > total memory limit for itself and all its children, and then giving > that cgroup's children separate memory limits within that overall > limit? Yup. Isn't this reasonable? Without this, if I'm a task in a 1GB limited cgroup, I can create a new one, set 2GB limit and spawn a kid into it (or move there myself) and be happy with 2GB of memory... With the proposed change, even if I set a 2GB for a subgroup it will not pass _my_ (1GB) limit. > Paul > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
