Balbir Singh wrote: > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:32:58 +0200 >> Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Provide distinct cgroup VM overcommit accounting and handling using the memory >>> resource controller. >>> >> Could you explain the benefits of this even when we have memrlimit controller ? >> (If unsure, see 2.6.26-rc5-mm1 and search memrlimit controller.) >> >> And this kind of virtual-address-handling things should be implemented on >> memrlimit controller (means not on memory-resource-controller.). >> It seems this patch doesn't need to handle page_group. >> >> Considering hierarchy, putting several kinds of features on one controller is >> not good, I think. Balbir, how do you think ? >> > > I would tend to agree. With the memrlimit controller, can't we do this in user > space now? Figure out the overcommit value and based on that setup the memrlimit? I also agree with Balbir and Kamezawa. Separate controller for VM (i.e. vma-s lengths) is more preferable, rather than yet another fancy feature on top of the existing rss one. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
