Balbir Singh wrote: > Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:51:59 +0530 >>> Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> David Rientjes wrote: >>>> Yes, I prefer 0 as well and had that in a series in the Lost World >>>> of my earlier memory/RSS controller patches. I feel now that 0 is >>>> a bit confusing, we don't use 0 to mean unlimited, unless we >>>> treat the memory.limit_in_bytes value as boolean. 0 is false, >>>> meaning there is no limit, > 0 is true, which means the limit >>>> is set and the value is specified to the value read out. >>> I prefer 0 than -1, too >> Remember, that we may use resource counters for other control groups >> 0 would make ore sense, like for numfile CG. 0 can mean that this >> group is not allowed to open any files. Treating 0 as unlimited for >> some CGs and as 0 for others is a mess. >> > > I disagree, numfile CG using 0 will not work, cause you'll not be able > to do anything with 0, you can't even cat the numfile.limit file; for So what? I'm the administrator and I don't want this particular subgroup to open any files :) > that matter anything with 0 will not work. You'll always exceed the Yet again - I don't want some subgroup to consume any of some resource. E.g. I don't want some subgroup to use any private pages :) shared only, what can I do? > limit. > > Setting 0 to mean unlimited might make sense. Setting 0 as unlimited is used nowhere in the kernel, isn't it? Thanks, Pavel _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
