Balbir Singh wrote: > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:19:18 +0530 >> Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Hi, Kamezawa-San, >>> >> Hi, >> >>> Your changes make sense, but not CLUI (Command Line Usage) sense. >>> 1. The problem is that when we mix strings with numbers, tools that >>> parse/use get confused and complicated >> yes, maybe. >> >>> 2. ULONGLONG_MAX is a real limit, there is no such thing as unlimited. >>> If the user does ever go beyond ULONGLONG_MAX, we will limit him :-) >>> >> Oh. res_counter.c uses LONGLONG_MAX as default value. >> need fix ? or intended ? > > Pavel do you remember why LONG was chosen instead of ULONG? To prevent the overflow in "charge" routine. See, if you add two numbers less than LONG_MAX, but with unsigned long type each, you will never have an overflowed result. >> And okay there is no "unlimited" state. >> >>> Having said that, I do wish to have a more intuitive interface for >>> users. May be a perl/python script to hide away the numbers game >>> from the users. What do you think? >>> >> I agree with you that perl/python script can hide details. but they need knowledge >> about the maximum value, which is given as default value. >> >> In short, what I want is some value like RLIM_INFINITY in ulimit. >> > > I like the idea of RLIM_INFINITY and how ulimit as a tool shows > a value. I guess we need something like RES_COUNTER_LIMIT_MAX > and the user tool can show the limit as maximum. We could also > define a special number, RES_COUNTER_LIMIT_INFINITY, such that > containers will not enforce limits when the limit is set to > this value. > >> Because it seems that res_counter.c will be used for other resouce control purpose, >> I thought some generic way (value) to know/specify "the maximum value" is helpful for >> all resource controller interface. >> >> If there is an concensus that treaing ULONGLONG_MAX as default, it's ok. >> > > When I worked on the first version of res_counters, I used 0 to indicate > unlimited. When Pavel posted his version, I think derived from > beancounters, we did not want to have unlimited containers, so he used > the maximum value Yup! Setting LONGMAX pages for container means that this container is unlimited, since there're no such many pages on any arch :) >> Thanks, >> -Kame >> > > Thanks for looking into this, > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers