On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Hugh Dickins <hugh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I don't see that I'm denying you a way to guarantee that (though I've > been thinking more of the limits than the guarantees): I'm not saying > that you cannot have a mem controller, I'm saying that you can also > have a mem+swap controller; but that a swap-by-itself controller > makes no sense to me. OK, fair enough. > > I think that works until you get to fork: shared files and > private/anonymous/swap behave differently from then on. > Good point. It works as long as you never do a plain fork() without immediate execve() though. Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
