From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Emelyanov Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] allow "unlimited" limit value. Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:02:31 +0400 Message-ID: <46FA3C47.606@openvz.org> 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> <46FA3B94.3080808@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46FA3B94.3080808-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@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, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, David Rientjes List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Balbir Singh wrote: > 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 So what? I'm the administrator and I don't want this particular subgroup to open any files :) > that matter anything with 0 will not work. You'll always exceed the Yet again - I don't want some subgroup to consume any of some resource. E.g. I don't want some subgroup to use any private pages :) shared only, what can I do? > limit. > > Setting 0 to mean unlimited might make sense. Setting 0 as unlimited is used nowhere in the kernel, isn't it? Thanks, Pavel