On 08/15/2011 03:14 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
>
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This will make sense, since the kernel memory management per-cgroup is one of the
>> things we'd live to have, but this particular idea will definitely not work in case
>> we keep the containers' files on one partition keeping each container in its own
>> chroot environment.
>
> And you want a per-container dcache limit?
To be more specific - we want to protect the node with >1 containers from one of
them growing the dcache infinitely. One of the solutions to this - per container
dcache limit.
> Will the containers share the same superblock?
Yes, this is typical scenario for both OpenVZ and LXC now.
> Couldn't you simply do per-container "struct kmem_accounted_cache" in struct superblock?
If by this you mean "account for all the kmem associated with particular superblock" then
this is OK for us, but this can't be done in a simple
if (used + size > limit)
return -ENOMEM
else {
used += size;
return 0;
}
manner, since once we hit the limit we should shrink the unused dentries. And most of the
patches are about this.
> Pekka
> .
>
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
