On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Paul Menage wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Hugh Dickins <hugh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? > > Scheduling jobs on to machines is much more straightforward when they > request xGB of memory and yGB of swap rather than just (x+y)GB of > (memory+swap). We want to be able to guarantee to jobs that they will > be able to use xGB of real memory. 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. > Actually my preferred approach to swap controlling would be something like: > > - allow malloc to support mmaping pages from a temporary file rather > than mmapping anonymous memory I think that works until you get to fork: shared files and private/anonymous/swap behave differently from then on. Hugh _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
