Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Paul Menage wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:06 AM, Hugh Dickins <hugh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> (Different topic, but one day I ought to get around to saying again >>> how absurd I think a swap controller; whereas a mem+swap controller >>> makes plenty of sense. I think Rik and others said the same.) >> Agreed that a swap controller without a memory controller doesn't make >> much sense, but a memory controller without a swap controller can make >> sense on machines that don't intend to use swap. > > I agree that a memory controller without a swap controller can > make sense: I hope so, anyway, since that's what's in mainline. > Even if swap is used, memory is a more precious resource than swap, > and you were right to go about controlling memory first. > Yes, I agree. >> So if they were separate controllers, we'd use the proposed cgroup >> dependency features to make the swap controller depend on the memory >> controller - in which case you'd only be able to mount the swap >> controller on a hierarchy that also had the memory controller, and the >> swap controller would be able to make use of the page ownership >> information. >> >> It's more of a modularity issue than a functionality issue, I think - >> the swap controller and memory controller are tracking fundamentally >> different things (space on disk versus pages in memory), and the only >> dependency between them is the "memory controller" tracking the >> ownership of a page and providing it to the "swap controller". > > It sounds as if you're interpreting my "mem+swap controller" as a > mem controller and a swap controller and the swap controller makes > use of some of the mem controller infrastructure. > > No, I'm trying to say something stronger than that. I'm saying, > as I've said before, that I cannot imagine why anyone would want > to control swap itself - what they want to control is the total > of mem+swap. Swap is a second-class citizen, nobody wants swap > if they can have mem, so why control it separately? > > IIRC Rik expressed the same by pointing out that a cgroup at its > swap limit would then be forced to grow in mem (until it hits its > mem limit): so controlling the less precious resource would increase > pressure on the more precious resource. (Actually, that probably > bears little relation to what he said - sorry, Rik!) I don't recall > what answer he got, perhaps I'd be persuaded if I heard it again. > I see what your saying. When you look at Linux right now, we control swap independent of memory, so I am not totally opposed to setting swap, instead of swap+mem. I might not want to swap from a particular cgroup, in which case, I set swap to 0 and risk OOMing, which might be an acceptable trade-off depending on my setup. I could easily change this policy on demand and add swap if OOMing was no longer OK. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers