On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:01:32 -0300 Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/09/2011 12:12 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 01:23:16 -0300 > > Glauber Costa<glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> With all the infrastructure in place, this patch implements > >> per-cgroup control for tcp memory pressure handling. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> CC: David S. Miller<davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> CC: Hiroyouki Kamezawa<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> CC: Eric W. Biederman<ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hmm, then, kmem_cgroup.c is just a caller of plugins implemented > > by other components ? > > Kame, > > Refer to my discussion with Greg. How would you feel about it being > accounted to a single "kernel memory" limit in memcg? > Hmm, it's argued that 'cgroup is hard to use, it's difficult!!!'. Then, if implementation is clean, I think it may be good to add kmem limit to memcg. Your and Greg's idea is to have memory.kmem_limit_in_bytes ? Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>