From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:07:07 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] cgroup swap subsystem In-Reply-To: <47CE5AE2.2050303@openvz.org> Message-ID: References: <47CE36A9.3060204@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> <47CE5AE2.2050303@openvz.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Pavel Emelyanov Cc: Daisuke Nishimura , containers@lists.osdl.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com List-ID: On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > Daisuke Nishimura wrote: > > > > Todo: > > - rebase new kernel, and split into some patches. > > - Merge with memory subsystem (if it would be better), or > > remove dependency on CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_CONT if possible > > (needs to make page_cgroup more generic one). > > Merge is a must IMHO. I can hardly imagine a situation in which > someone would need these two separately. Strongly agree. Nobody's interested in swap as such: it's just secondary memory, where RAM is primary memory. People want to control memory as the sum of the two; and I expect they may also want to control primary memory (all that the current memcg does) within that. I wonder if such nesting of limits fits easily into cgroups or will be problematic. Hugh -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org