[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1219161525.23641.125.camel@nimitz>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:58:44 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [discuss] memrlimit - potential applications that can use
On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 12:48 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> 1. To provide a soft landing mechanism for applications that exceed their memory
> limit. Currently in the memory resource controller, we swap and on failure OOM.
> 2. To provide a mechanism similar to memory overcommit for control groups.
> Overcommit has finer accounting, we just account for virtual address space usage.
> 3. Vserver will directly be able to port over on top of memrlimit (their address
> space limitation feature)
Balbir,
This all seems like a little bit too much hand waving to me. I don't
really see a single concrete user in the "potential applications" here.
I really don't understand why you're pushing this so hard if you don't
have anyone to actually use it.
I just don't see anyone that *needs* it. There's a lot of "it would be
nice", but no "needs".
-- Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists