On 9/25/07, David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If you're fine with rounding up to the nearest page, then what's the point > of exposing it as a number of bytes?? You'll never get a granularity > finer than a kilobyte. API != implementation. > > So by expressing it in terms of bytes instead of kilobytes, you're just > making the largest amount of memory allowed via this interface smaller > that is should have to be. Yes, that's true. With a 64-bit count in bytes, we can only limit people to 16 exabytes of memory. We're going to bump up against that limit in no time. > > > > That fundamental unit being charged are pages, > > > > No, that just happens to be the implementation mechanism in this controller. > > > > And this controller owns the memory.limit file so it can express its > memory limits in whatever unit it wants. > Right, but it would be nice to have different memory controllers be API-compatible with one another. Bytes is the lowest common denominator. Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
