On Tue, 17.09.13 14:21, Chen Hanxiao ([email protected]) wrote: > From: Chen Hanxiao <[email protected]> > > @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ $1.CPUAccounting, config_parse_bool, > 0, > $1.CPUShares, config_parse_cpu_shares, 0, > offsetof($1, cgroup_context) > $1.MemoryAccounting, config_parse_bool, 0, > offsetof($1, cgroup_context.memory_accounting) > $1.MemoryLimit, config_parse_memory_limit, 0, > offsetof($1, cgroup_context) > +$1.MemorySWLimit, config_parse_memory_limit, 0, > offsetof($1, cgroup_context) > $1.MemorySoftLimit, config_parse_memory_limit, 0, > offsetof($1, cgroup_context) > $1.DeviceAllow, config_parse_device_allow, 0, > offsetof($1, cgroup_context) > $1.DevicePolicy, config_parse_device_policy, 0, > offsetof($1, cgroup_context.device_policy)
OK, so here's another idea: I have the strong suspicion that people are much more likely using the new limit that includes the swap than the current MemoryLimit= that doesn't. Hence, to make this simpler, I'd propose to simply swap things around: MemoryLimit= would start writing to memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes. And a new MemoryRAMLimit= would controler the original memory.limit_in_bytes? This shifts things around a bit but I think it would be much nicer to use? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
