Re: [PATCH] Simplify memory controller and resource counter I/O

[Balbir Singh <balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>]

Paul Menage wrote:
> Hi Balbir,
> 
> Any thoughts on this patch?
> 

Hi, Paul,

I remember seeing this patch, sorry for not responding earlier

> Cheers,
> 
> Paul
> 
> On 9/25/07, Paul Menage <menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> Simplify the memory controller and resource counter I/O routines
>>
>> This patch strips out some I/O boilerplate from resource counters and
>> the memory controller. It also adds locking to the resource counter
>> reads and writes, and forbids writes to the root memory cgroup's limit
>> file.
>>

Forbidding writing to the root resource counter is a policy decision
I am unable to make up my mind about. It sounds right, but unless
we have a notion of unlimited resources, I am a bit concerned about
taking away this flexibility.

>> One arguable drawback to this patch is that the use of memparse() is
>> lost in the cleanup. Having said that, given the existing of shell
>> arithmetic, it's not clear to me that typing
>>

memparse(), makes it so much easier, we need to use it.

>> echo $[2<<30] > memory.limit
>>

Very geeky! I don't like it personally

>> is especially harder than
>>
>> echo 2G > memory.limit
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Paul Menage <menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>>

I like the read_uint() and write_uint() overall, but in the case
of setting the limit, I'd still like the flexibility of having
a strategy pattern that would make the UI more friendly.

Do read_uint() and write_uint(), just read and write unsigned
integers?

[snip]

-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL