Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > 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. > Yep! it seems I totally miss the memrlimit controller. I was trying to implement pretty the same functionalities, using a different approach. However, I agree that a separate controller seems to be a better solution. Thank you all for pointing in the right direction. I'll test memrlimit controller and give a feedback. -Andrea _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers