[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHH2K0aOHPW2xqb86sN4A3xBwZKU0qgnZ05cn-3XKES392tftg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:56:18 -0700
From: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
To: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc: Paul Menage <paul@...lmenage.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, containers@...ts.osdl.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, xemul@...allels.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hiroyouki Kamezawa <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] per-cgroup tcp buffer limitation
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com> wrote:
> On 09/12/2011 02:03 AM, Paul Menage wrote:
>> I definitely think that there was no consensus reached on unified
>> versus split charging - but I think that we can work around that and
>> keep everyone happy, see below.
>
> I think at this point there is at least consensus that this could very well
> live in memcg, right ?
Yes, I think it should live in memcg.
>> On the subject of filesystems specifically, see Greg Thelen's proposal
>> for using bind mounts to account on a bind mount to a given cgroup -
>> that could apply to dentries, page tables and other kernel memory as
>> well as page cache.
>
> Care to point me to it ?
http://marc.info/?t=127749867100004&r=1&w=2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists