Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 13:14 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>
>> Separate limits for RSS and RSS+pagecache are also a must.
>
> This I still disagree upon. Page-cache limits are orthogonal to
> containers and not a requirement for containers. If you want such a
> feature get
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 13:14 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
>
>> Separate limits for RSS and RSS+pagecache are also a must.
>
> This I still disagree upon. Page-cache limits are orthogonal to
> containers and not a requirement for containers. If you want such a
> feature get
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 13:14 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Separate limits for RSS and RSS+pagecache are also a must.
This I still disagree upon. Page-cache limits are orthogonal to
containers and not a requirement for containers. If you want such a
feature get it in Linux proper and don't sneak
Hi, Pavel,
Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Balbir Singh wrote:
>
> As far as I remember at OLS we decided to implement per-zone RLU
> lists and reuse the lru lock as well. This will remove all the
> problems with per-container lists inconsistency.
>
It's there in the TODO list. It is easy to implemen
Balbir Singh wrote:
> Resending with the patch numbering fixed and linux-mm copied
>
> This patchset implements another version of the memory controller. These
> patches have been through a big churn, the first set of patches were posted
> last year and earlier this year at
> http://lkml.org
Resending with the patch numbering fixed and linux-mm copied
This patchset implements another version of the memory controller. These
patches have been through a big churn, the first set of patches were posted
last year and earlier this year at
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/2/19/10
Ever since
6 matches
Mail list logo
