On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Balbir Singh wrote: > > 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. It's taken me a while to understand your point. I think you're saying that with a swap controller, you can set the swap limit to 0 on a cgroup if you want to keep it entirely in memory, without setting any mem limit upon it; whereas with my mem+swap controller, you'd have to set a mem limit then an equal mem+swap limit to achieve the same "never go to swap" effect, and maybe you don't want to set a mem limit. Hmm, but an unreachably high mem limit, and equal mem+swap limit, would achieve that effect. Sorry, I don't think I have understood (and even if the unreachably high limit didn't work, this seems more about setting a don't-swap flag than imposing a swap limit). Hugh _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
