KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:46:58 +0530 > Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Paul Menage wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:13 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki >>> <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> or remove all relationship among counters of *different* type of resources. >>>> user-land-daemon will do enough jobs. >>>> >>> Yes, that would be my preferred choice, if people agree that >>> hierarchically limiting overall virtual memory isn't useful. (I don't >>> think I have a use for it myself). >>> >> Virtual limits are very useful. I have a patch ready to send out. >> They limit the amount of paging a cgroup can do (virtual limit - RSS limit). >> Some times end users want to set virtual limit == RSS limit, so that the cgroup >> OOMs on cross the RSS limit. >> > I have no objection to adding virtual limit itself. > (It can be considered as extended ulimit.) > > But if you'd like to add relationship between virtual-limit/memory-usage-limit, > please take care to make it clear that relationship is reaseonable. > No, I don't want to add a relationship, just plain virtual memory limits and let the system administrators determine what works for them. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
