[lxc-users] Problem with memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes on Ubuntu 14.04.

[Jäkel, Guido]

Dear Anthony, Dear Fajar,

On may unit letters like 'G' while setting the values of the memory cgroup controller.

But note that  memsw  stands for  the sum of  memory and swap. Therefore, can't set  memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes   to a value *lower* than the actual value of  memory.limit_in_bytes. In the other hand, you can't set  memory.limit_in_bytes  to a value *greater* than the actual value of  memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes.

Because the default is "unlimited", you first have to lower the value for memory before you be able to lower the memsw value.

To my opinion this is no good interface design, but unfortunately that's the current state. Maybe we should send a patch upstream, to automatically rise  memsw if  mem  should be set to a value greater than memsw and by the other hand lower  mem, if  memsw should be set below mem.


Greetings

Guido

>-----Original Message-----
>From: lxc-users [mailto:lxc-users-bounces at lists.linuxcontainers.org] On Behalf Of PONCET Anthony
>Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:06 PM
>To: LXC users mailing-list
>Subject: Re: [lxc-users] Problem with memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes on Ubuntu 14.04.
>
>Le 26/02/2015 15:36, Fajar A. Nugraha a écrit :
>
>
>	You're apprently right. "2G" is not the cause. Rather, it should be this (I didn't test it):
>
>	http://cateee.net/lkddb/web-lkddb/MEMCG_SWAP_ENABLED.html
>
>
>	at least ubuntu's 3.16.0-28-generic has # CONFIG_MEMCG_SWAP_ENABLED is not set
>
>	On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:19 PM, CDR <venefax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>		It should work with 2G. The rest a bad excuse. It has become a standard in the software industry.
>
>
>		On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Fajar A. Nugraha <list at fajar.net> wrote:
>
>
>			On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 6:51 PM, PONCET Anthony <ff240 at msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>				Hello,
>				I'm trying to used the memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes, and I have this error when I trying to
>set this : "lxc-cgroup -n c_name memory.memsw.limit_in_bytes 2G
>
>
>
>			The name does say "limit_in_bytes", not "limit_in_human-friendly_format". Did you try putting
>2147483648 instead of 2G?
>
>
>			--
>			Fajar
>
>			_______________________________________________
>			lxc-users mailing list
>			lxc-users at lists.linuxcontainers.org
>			http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
>
>
>
>
>		_______________________________________________
>		lxc-users mailing list
>		lxc-users at lists.linuxcontainers.org
>		http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
>
>
>
>
>
>
>	_______________________________________________
>	lxc-users mailing list
>	lxc-users at lists.linuxcontainers.org
>	http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
>
>Hmm... It's working when I set in bytes, but I don't know why, but now it's working with 2G.
>I'm locked since yesterday... :s
>
>Thanks.
>