[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E7E1306.9060200@parallels.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:27:34 -0300
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <paul@...lmenage.org>,
<lizf@...fujitsu.com>, <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
<ebiederm@...ssion.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
<gthelen@...gle.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <kirill@...temov.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] tcp buffer limitation: per-cgroup limit
On 09/24/2011 01:58 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Glauber Costa<glommer@...allels.com> 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.
>
> -Andi
>
Well, not that hard, I believe.
and given the benchmarks I've run in this iteration, I think it wouldn't
be that much of a performance impact either. We just need to account it
to a task whenever we account it for a control group. Now that the
functions where accounting are done are abstracted away, it is even
quite few places to touch.
--
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