From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] allow "unlimited" limit value. Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:29:32 +0530 Message-ID: <46FA3B94.3080808@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20070925193900.1af6d871.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <46F8E7AE.2090309@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070925202954.4e477564.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <46F8F6FE.7040006@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <46F907CE.1060807@openvz.org> <46F90DCA.5030209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <46F90E48.6080603@openvz.org> <20070926000510.7d956db8.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <46F925ED.20303@openvz.org> <20070926003056.7df087a0.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <46F95FD7.3010204@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070926102343.0f700503.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <46FA2A4B.4040801@openvz.org> Reply-To: balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46FA2A4B.4040801-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@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: Pavel Emelyanov Cc: containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, David Rientjes List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:51:59 +0530 >> Balbir Singh wrote: >> >>> David Rientjes wrote: >>> Yes, I prefer 0 as well and had that in a series in the Lost World >>> of my earlier memory/RSS controller patches. I feel now that 0 is >>> a bit confusing, we don't use 0 to mean unlimited, unless we >>> treat the memory.limit_in_bytes value as boolean. 0 is false, >>> meaning there is no limit, > 0 is true, which means the limit >>> is set and the value is specified to the value read out. >> I prefer 0 than -1, too > > Remember, that we may use resource counters for other control groups > 0 would make ore sense, like for numfile CG. 0 can mean that this > group is not allowed to open any files. Treating 0 as unlimited for > some CGs and as 0 for others is a mess. > I disagree, numfile CG using 0 will not work, cause you'll not be able to do anything with 0, you can't even cat the numfile.limit file; for that matter anything with 0 will not work. You'll always exceed the limit. Setting 0 to mean unlimited might make sense. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL