Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > 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. > Aah.. Thanks, my memory short circuited on me. >>> 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 :) > Pavel, we no longer account in pages, we do it in bytes. Second, this assumption cannot hold for long, memory sizes are growing, I think we need a special value. >>> Thanks, >>> -Kame >>> >> Thanks for looking into this, >> > -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers