Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964837AbWHQPl6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:41:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964879AbWHQPl6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:41:58 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:19164 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964837AbWHQPl5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:41:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:40:33 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Kirill Korotaev Cc: rohitseth@google.com, Alan Cox , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ingo Molnar , Christoph Hellwig , Pavel Emelianov , Andrey Savochkin , devel@openvz.org, Rik van Riel , hugh@veritas.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/7] UBC: syscalls (user interface) Message-Id: <20060817084033.f199d4c7.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <44E45D6A.8000003@sw.ru> References: <44E33893.6020700@sw.ru> <44E33C3F.3010509@sw.ru> <1155752277.22595.70.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1155755069.24077.392.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1155756170.22595.109.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <44E45D6A.8000003@sw.ru> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.17; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1461 Lines: 32 On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:13:30 +0400 Kirill Korotaev wrote: > > I was more thinking about (for example) user land physical memory limit > > for that bean counter. If the limits are going down, then the system > > call should try to flush out page cache pages or swap out anonymous > > memory. But you are right that it won't be possible in all cases, like > > for in kernel memory limits. > Such kind of memory management is less efficient than the one > making decisions based on global shortages and global LRU alogrithm. I also was quite surprised that openvz appears to have no way of constraining a container's memory usage. "I want to run this bunch of processes in a 4.5GB container". > The problem here is that doing swap out takes more expensive disk I/O > influencing other users. A well-set-up container would presumably be working against its own spindle(s). If the operator has gone to all the trouble of isolating a job from the system's other jobs, he'd be pretty dumb to go and let all the "isolated" jobs share a stinky-slow resource like a disk. But yes, swap is a problem. To do this properly we'd need a way of saying "this container here uses that swap device over there". - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/