Balbir Singh wrote: > YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote: >>>> + int batch_count = 128; /* XXX arbitrary */ >>> Could we define and use something like MEM_CGROUP_BATCH_COUNT for now? >>> Later we could consider and see if it needs to be tunable. numbers are >>> hard to read in code. >> although i don't think it makes sense, i can do so if you prefer. >> > > Using numbers like 128 make the code unreadable. I prefer something > like MEM_CGROUP_BATCH_COUNT since its more readable than 128. If we ever > propagate batch_count to other dependent functions, I'd much rather do > it with a well defined name. > I just checked we already have FORCE_UNCHARGE_BATCH, we could just rename and re-use it. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
