Re: [PATCH] per-cgroup tcp buffer limitation

[Greg Thelen]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/