On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 07:59:31AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> This patch uses the "tcp_max_mem" field of the kmem_cgroup to > >> effectively control the amount of kernel memory pinned by a cgroup. > >> > >> We have to make sure that none of the memory pressure thresholds > >> specified in the namespace are bigger than the current cgroup. > > > > I noticed that some other OS known by bash seem to have a rlimit per > > process for this. Would that make sense too? Not sure how difficult > > your infrastructure would be to extend to that. > > rlimit per process for tcp usage? Interesting, that reminds me, we > need to revisit rlimit (RSS) at some point I would love to have that for some situations! -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. -- 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>