Paul Menage wrote: > Hi Balbir, > > Any thoughts on this patch? > Hi, Paul, I remember seeing this patch, sorry for not responding earlier > Cheers, > > Paul > > On 9/25/07, Paul Menage <menage@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Simplify the memory controller and resource counter I/O routines >> >> This patch strips out some I/O boilerplate from resource counters and >> the memory controller. It also adds locking to the resource counter >> reads and writes, and forbids writes to the root memory cgroup's limit >> file. >> Forbidding writing to the root resource counter is a policy decision I am unable to make up my mind about. It sounds right, but unless we have a notion of unlimited resources, I am a bit concerned about taking away this flexibility. >> One arguable drawback to this patch is that the use of memparse() is >> lost in the cleanup. Having said that, given the existing of shell >> arithmetic, it's not clear to me that typing >> memparse(), makes it so much easier, we need to use it. >> echo $[2<<30] > memory.limit >> Very geeky! I don't like it personally >> is especially harder than >> >> echo 2G > memory.limit >> >> Signed-off-by: Paul Menage <menage@xxxxxxxxxx> >> I like the read_uint() and write_uint() overall, but in the case of setting the limit, I'd still like the flexibility of having a strategy pattern that would make the UI more friendly. Do read_uint() and write_uint(), just read and write unsigned integers? [snip] -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
