Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932139AbWHVIts (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:49:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932141AbWHVItr (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:49:47 -0400 Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.233.200]:28328 "EHLO relay.sw.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932139AbWHVItr (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:49:47 -0400 Message-ID: <44EAC5CA.8020605@sw.ru> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:52:26 +0400 From: Kirill Korotaev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060417 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Jackson CC: riel@redhat.com, Linux@sc8-sf-spam2-b.sourceforge.net, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, haveblue@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@suse.de, hch@infradead.org, saw@sw.ru, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, rohitseth@google.com, hugh@veritas.com, Christoph@sc8-sf-spam2-b.sourceforge.net, mingo@elte.hu, devel@openvz.org, xemul@openvz.org Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 4/7] UBC: syscalls (user interface) 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> <20060817084033.f199d4c7.akpm@osdl.org> <20060818120809.B11407@castle.nmd.msu.ru> <1155912348.9274.83.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060818094248.cdca152d.akpm@osdl.org> <44E9B69D.9060109@sw.ru> <20060821105106.6688c92c.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20060821105106.6688c92c.pj@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 982 Lines: 28 Paul Jackson wrote: >>this doesn't allow memory overcommitment, does it? > > > Uh - no - I don't think so. You can over commit > the memory of a task in a small cpuset just as well > as you can a task in a big cpuset or even one in the > top cpuset covering the entire system. > > Perhaps I didn't understand your point. My point was that when you have lots of containers their summary memory limit can be much higher then available RAM. This allows bursts of memory usage for containers, since it is very unlikely for all of them to consume the memory simulatenously. E.g. hosters usually oversell memory say 2 times on the node. So the question was whether it is possbile to overcommit memory with NUMA emulation? Thanks, Kirill - 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/