From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: yamamoto-jCdQPDEk3idL9jVzuh4AOg@public.gmane.org (YAMAMOTO Takashi) Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] memory controller background reclamation Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:43:58 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <20071126224359.2268C1CF696@siro.lan> References: <474A43D5.8020600@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:26:05 +0530" <474A43D5.8020600-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org Cc: containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org, minoura-jCdQPDEk3idL9jVzuh4AOg@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org > Balbir Singh wrote: > > YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: > >>>> + int batch_count = 128; /* XXX arbitrary */ > >>> Could we define and use something like MEM_CGROUP_BATCH_COUNT for now? > >>> Later we could consider and see if it needs to be tunable. numbers are > >>> hard to read in code. > >> although i don't think it makes sense, i can do so if you prefer. > >> > > > > Using numbers like 128 make the code unreadable. I prefer something > > like MEM_CGROUP_BATCH_COUNT since its more readable than 128. If we ever > > propagate batch_count to other dependent functions, I'd much rather do > > it with a well defined name. > > > > I just checked we already have FORCE_UNCHARGE_BATCH, we could just > rename and re-use it. i don't think it's a good idea to use a single constant for completely different things. YAMAMOTO Takashi