On Tue, 17.09.13 17:36, Lennart Poettering ([email protected]) wrote: > 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?
OK, so I talked to Tejun here at LinuxCon and he said that we probably should not expose memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes for now since it's likely to change or go away soon. In fact, the only memory attribute we should expose for now is MemoryLimit= accorrding to him, and it should do what it already does. Also, he said that memory.use_hierarchy should be unconditionally set by systemd for all cgroups systemd creates. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
