On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Paul Menage wrote: > > nit pick, should be memory.limit_in_bytes > > > > Can we reconsider this? I do think that plain "limit" would enable you > to have a more consistent API across all resource counters users. > Why aren't limits expressed in kilobytes? All architectures have PAGE_SIZE defined on that order. If I echo -n 8191 > memory.limit_in_bytes, I'm still only going to be able to charge one page on my x86_64. And then my program's malloc(5000) is going to fail, which leads to the inevitable head scratching. I think it would be best to express memory.limit in terms of KB, divide that by PAGE_SIZE to store internally in res_counter.limit, deal with charging for memory internally in terms of number of pages, and exposing it back to userspace in terms of res_counter.limit * PAGE_SIZE (KB). David _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
