Paul Menage wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:16 AM, 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). > > Ah, from this should I assume that you're talking about virtual > address space limits, not virtual memory limits? > > My comment above was referring to Pavel's proposal to limit total > virtual memory (RAM + swap) for a cgroup, and then limit swap as a > subset of that, which basically makes it impossible to limit the RAM > usage of cgroups properly if you also want to allow swap usage. > > Virtual address space limits are somewhat orthogonal to that. > Yes, I was referring to Virtual address limits (along the lines of RLIMIT_AS). I guess it's just confusing terminology. I have patches for Virtual address limits. I should send them out soon. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers